Sacramental Marriage & Domestic Violence/Emotional Abuse

[bluebell_wood]

Is it possible to have a sacramental marriage when there is domestic violence and/or emotional abuse taking place?

Why isn’t domestic violence and/or emotional abuse grounds for an annulment in and of itself?

 

[JGMendes4049]

Is it possible to have a sacramental marriage when there is domestic violence and/or emotional abuse taking place?

Why isn’t domestic violence and/or emotional abuse grounds for an annulment in and of itself?

Because domestic violence and emotional abuse are not reasons a marriage was not valid at its beginning. An annulment is a statement saying that the marriage was never sacramentally valid, due to some impediment at the time of marriage.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Is it possible to have a sacramental marriage when there is domestic violence and/or emotional abuse taking place?

Yes, it is possible. Marriage is a sacrament if both spouses are baptised. Their behaviour towards each other, including abuse or violence, does not determine whether marriage is a sacrament.

Why isn’t domestic violence and/or emotional abuse grounds for an annulment in and of itself?

Because a marriage is annulled based on matters immediately prior to or at the time of marriage: were the couple free to marry, were there any impediments to marriage, did they give proper consent, was proper canonical form used, etc. Events that happen after marriage never give grounds for an annulment. An annulment cannot be given for the same reasons that a civil divorce is given.

The current behaviour of the spouses towards each other might provide evidence of some defect in the marriage at its start. It might provide some evidence for an annulment process. However, on its own it is not a grounds for an annulment.

 

[purplesunshine]

Yes, it is possible. Marriage is a sacrament if both spouses are baptised. Their behaviour towards each other, including abuse or violence, does not determine whether marriage is a sacrament.

Because a marriage is annulled based on matters immediately prior to or at the time of marriage: were the couple free to marry, were there any impediments to marriage, did they give proper consent, was proper canonical form used, etc. Events that happen after marriage never give grounds for an annulment. An annulment cannot be given for the same reasons that a civil divorce is given.

The current behaviour of the spouses towards each other might provide evidence of some defect in the marriage at its start. It might provide some evidence for an annulment process. However, on its own it is not a grounds for an annulment.

Yep.

However, domestic violence is a pretty good indicator that something was VERY wrong before marriage…usually in the “mental impedements” category.

 

[Corki]

Yep.

However, domestic violence is a pretty good indicator that something was VERY wrong before marriage…usually in the “mental impedements” category.

True but not always. Emotional or physical trauma might result in violent or abusive behavior developing later. Drug abuse that develops later in a marriage might have the same effect. Those would still be good reasons to separate but not necessarily indicative of an invalid marriage.

 

[Soulstorm]

Um with that in mind does that mean if a woman divorced an abusive husband but there is nothing that would give that situation an annulment then that means she’s can never get married again on threat of damnation?

 

[joanofarc2008]

I would check out this statement below - it is a great statement by the USCCB- also if this is something you are actually struggling with see your priest immediately - we also have a divorce/annulment support group on here should you not have one in your parish - you can get to it through my signature block.

When I Call For Help

 

[1ke]

Is it possible to have a sacramental marriage when there is domestic violence and/or emotional abuse taking place?

Yes

Why isn’t domestic violence and/or emotional abuse grounds for an annulment in and of itself?

Because that has no bearing on an impediment or defective consent.

A decree of nullity is a finding of fact regarding an impediment or defect at the time the vows are exchanged.

Sinful and bad behavior during the marriage do not make a valid marriage invalid.

 

[thistle]

Is it possible to have a sacramental marriage when there is domestic violence and/or emotional abuse taking place?

Why isn’t domestic violence and/or emotional abuse grounds for an annulment in and of itself?

An annulment is a declaration that the marriage was not valid in the first place. It only takes into account what happened up to and including the actual wedding. What happens during marriage is not relevant (at least as far as the validity is concerned) unless it supports something that was known prior to the marriage taking place.
Nothing can make a valid marriage invalid. It is either valid or invalid when it took place.

 

[bluebell_wood]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I’m not going through this myself, it’s just a worrisome hypothetical that bothers me.

Going off everyone’s replies, how can a marriage be sacramental in value if it no longer works for good and has no possibility of being salvageable, at the fault of one deranged spouse in this hypothetical?

This is troubling to me because I come from an Orthodox background and the view of marriage is different in that it is believed that the sacrament is dissolvable in extreme cases, where the situation causes more harm than good, and ecclesiastical divorce is granted as an act of economia.

I’m considering conversion to Catholicism and this teaching really bothers me.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I’m not going through this myself, it’s just a worrisome hypothetical that bothers me.

Going off everyone’s replies, how can a marriage be sacramental in value if it no longer works for good and has no possibility of being salvageable, at the fault of one deranged spouse in this hypothetical?

This is troubling to me because I come from an Orthodox background and the view of marriage is different in that it is believed that the sacrament is dissolvable in extreme cases, where the situation causes more harm than good, and ecclesiastical divorce is granted as an act of economia.

I’m considering conversion to Catholicism and this teaching really bothers me.

Who says an abusive marriage cannot work for good? Patiently bearing sufferings, especially unmerited sufferings, can ALWAYS work for good. Christ Himself chose to patiently bear abuse to demonstrate this.

Secondly, marriage is for better or worse, in sickness and health. It is, moreover, a covenant the spouses make with God as well as each other, so the promises made to Gid to be faithful to one’s spouse do not cease while both spouses live.

None of which is to say spouses need live together in an abusive relationship. In particular if there are children a parent’s first duty is to their welfare, and that would indicate they separate and the children go with the best parent. However, the sacramental bond remains and neither can validly remarry.

 

[puzzleannie]

Is it possible to have a sacramental marriage when there is domestic violence and/or emotional abuse taking place?

Why isn’t domestic violence and/or emotional abuse grounds for an annulment in and of itself?

of course it happens all the time that people reject the grace of the sacraments and act contrary to the charism of that sacrament

it is not grounds for annulment by itself unless it sheds light on the conditions that existed at the time consent was exchanged, namely the wedding, which would have made valid consent impossible. Events that transpire after the wedding are not grounds for annulment unless they relate to the ability and intention of the parties in exchanging consent, or their natural law, or canon law, ability to enter into a valid marriage.

No this in no way means the Church insists a spouse must remain in an abusive situation. She recognizes separation as a legitimate action the spouse may take to protect herself and her children and their rights. If the civil law requires divorce to effect that situation, the Church condones it. The civil divorce however does not end a valid marriage. Unless and until the marriage is examined and found invalid by the canon law tribunal–that is, the parties did not or could not exchange valid consent–it is still a marriage and it is still a sacrament.

In practical terms, the tribunal does look at all the evidence provided by the witnesses, and the parties, including what has transpired after the marriage, for evidence of conditions that existed at the time of the contract. They may very well conclude the actions of the abusive spouse indictated his inability to intend and profess valid marriage vows. Each case is different and decided on its merits, with the evidence provided, so comparisons with other cases are not very helpful.

An annulment is a statement saying that the marriage was never sacramentally valid, due to some impediment at the time of marriage.

this is is true only of a marriage between two baptized Christians. An annulment investigation may also consider the validity of a natural marriage.

 

[1ke]

Going off everyone’s replies, how can a marriage be sacramental in value if it no longer works for good and has no possibility of being salvageable, at the fault of one deranged spouse in this hypothetical?

It is a sacrament by its nature between the baptized.

People sin and reject sacramental grace every day.

I suggest that you get to know St. Rita of Cascia.

This is troubling to me because I come from an Orthodox background and the view of marriage is different in that it is believed that the sacrament is dissolvable in extreme cases, where the situation causes more harm than good, and ecclesiastical divorce is granted as an act of economia.

It is a sad fact that separation from Rome can lead to error. However, the Catholic Church does not teach one must stay with an abusive spouse. One can separate legally, and divorce civilly.

One cannot remarry, unless the marriage is proven to be invalid.

I’m considering conversion to Catholicism and this teaching really bothers me.

It is not what we do that makes the marriage a sacrament, it is Christ’s grace. Therefore, it is not us or the Church that can dissolve a marriage that is a sacrament. Christ said it is not dissolvable. Therefore we follow Christ.

What the Church can do is examine the marriage to determine whether or not a valid marriage took place.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Going off everyone’s replies, how can a marriage be sacramental in value if it no longer works for good and has no possibility of being salvageable, at the fault of one deranged spouse in this hypothetical?

The sacrament occurs at the time of the marriage if valid consent is exchanged and both spouses are baptised. Their subsequent behaviour towards each other cannot undo that sacrament.

This is troubling to me because I come from an Orthodox background and the view of marriage is different in that it is believed that the sacrament is dissolvable in extreme cases, where the situation causes more harm than good, and ecclesiastical divorce is granted as an act of economia.

The Catholic Church teaches that a valid, consummated, sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved. This is not simply a Church law. It is the law of Christ Himself. Under no circumstances can a marriage that is sacramental and consummated be dissolved. A marriage only ends with the death of one of the spouses.

A Church tribunal can investigate a marriage and determine whether it is valid or if it is null and void. If a tribunal determines that it is invalid that decision must be confirmed by a higher tribunal. They decide that marriages are invalid because at the time the spouses exchanged consent one or both of them was not free to marry; their was an impediment to their marriage; their was defective consent from one or both spouses; their was a defect of form. If the marriage is truly valid it cannot be dissolved.

If the situation exists as in your hypothesis the couple may separate. They may get a civil dissolution (a.k.a. divorce) to bring an end to the civil effects of their marriage. However, in the eyes of the Church they remain married even though separated. Neither of them is free to re-marry.

I’m considering conversion to Catholicism and this teaching really bothers me.

If this is just some hypothesis and you do not find yourself in these circumstances I do not understand why it should be of such concern to you.

 

[Corki]

Um with that in mind does that mean if a woman divorced an abusive husband but there is nothing that would give that situation an annulment then that means she’s can never get married again on threat of damnation?

It means that anyone who divorces civilly (regardless of reason) and who does not have his/her marriage investigated and declared null cannot marry again - period. It’s not possible.

 

[joanofarc2008]

It means that anyone who divorces civilly (regardless of reason) and who does not have his/her marriage investigated and declared null cannot marry again - period. It’s not possible.

It means that they cannot be remarried and stay in communion with the Church. Someone who civilly divorces should seek out a decree of nullity or live in continence. However, should the other spouse die then it is the same as being widowed and that spouse would be free to marry - not suggesting anything just throwing it out there.

 

[Corki]

It means that they cannot be remarried and stay in communion with the Church. Someone who civilly divorces should seek out a decree of nullity or live in continence. .

No, it means they cannot be remarried. They can attempt a marriage but it won’t be an actual marriage.

However, should the other spouse die then it is the same as being widowed and that spouse would be free to marry - not suggesting anything just throwing it out there

Of course, death of one spouse make the other free to marry.

 

[joanofarc2008]

No, it means they cannot be remarried. They can attempt a marriage but it won’t be an actual marriage.

Of course, death of one spouse make the other free to marry.

Yes but they can still attempt a marriage. We need to be careful with words like can or cannot because it usually prompts people to go - watch me especially when they have been in situations where control has been taken away. Shouldn’t and not in communion are much better words. Can’t comes off very judgemental - they all say the same thing.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

There are many examples in church history of women (and some men) dealing with abusive spouses. There have alway been church-approved methods of separating a woman from her abuser. The situations aren’t always what we would like today, but it has always been possible.

Usually it meant a separation of the whole family - children sent to live with relatives, wife to live in a convent or similar situation, and husband left with the house and goods. Today we would say that he got away with his bad behavior, but sin affects us all, and even today with civil divorce an abusers family suffers from his sin.

As others have said, a woman (or man) in an abusive relationship should always seek help. And if protecting herself and her children means civil divorce, the church understands that. What it doesn’t allow is her then feeling free to date, have a relationship, or remarry without annulment.

There have been several other threads about annulment, where those who have gone through the process have received healing and ‘closure’ even if their marriage was not annulled. Abusers usually show signs of potential abuse even before marriage, and the process of annulment (and the built in time in gives) can also help a woman understand what those signs are and so lead her to be more decerning if she does decide to remarry.

For those outside the church, how many women leave one abuser, only to fall into a similar relationship with another man? That is a very common, and very, very sad pattern. While many see the requirement to undergo an annulment proceeding as being harsh, it is really another potential source of grace for us.