Separation and annulment

[Actaeon]

They didn’t just say that they were unhappy, but they said that they suspect they have good reason to think they might be eligible for an annulment.

Once you’ve spent enough time on these forums, you’ll find that there are all kinds of people who think that mere unhappiness constitutes grounds for getting their marriage annulled (another reason I hate the term “annulment” and prefer to call it a declaration of nullity).

Unhappiness alone does not constitute grounds for a declaration of nullity… but could be a reason to investigate it.

No, it shouldn’t… and that’s the problem with the way that people treat tribunals and declarations of nullity. If you feel that your marriage could be invalid, that should be a totally separate issue from whether or not you are happy. After all, the wedding vow includes nothing about whether or not one is happy.

If a HAPPILY MARRIED couple comes to reasonably suspect that their marriage was contracted invalidly, they should LIKEWISE approach the church to clarify and fix the error… but because of the perception of annulments as catholic divorce (a perception which raises it’s head in this forum from time to time) couples often don’t understand the difference between determining if they were validly married and simply trying to get out of an unhappy situation.

In other words, investigation into whether or not a marriage could be declared null should be a logical, canon-law driven procedure, and not produced by the whims of emotion such as whether or not one is “happy”.

Preservation of the bond of the sacrament??? Um, if it is valid, it is valid. You don’t know it is valid, nor do the couple in question. That’s my point. We have the right to challenge it and to know what the Church looks at to determine if a valid marital bond does not exist whether natural or sacramental. Are you aware of the fact that the Catholic Church considers sacramental and natural marriages to be so important that we actually do our best to protect the bond of marriage (if it exists) by appointing a canon lawyer in annulment trials to defend the bond of marriage? This canon lawyer knows the law on marriage and is obligated to preserve any bond of marriage that might exist. Thus, it may be premature to suggest that talking to a canon lawyer about the possibility of an annulment is going against the preservation of the bond of the sacrament.

Perhaps I have not made myself clear in that I have NEVER ONCE anywhere on this forum under any identity stated that one should not talk to a canon lawyer or that it is outside of their rights to do so.

What I have stated here is that unhappiness in a marriage is itself not a grounds for annulment and that PERHAPS some effort should be put into rectifying that situation instead of focusing on “I’m unhappy and therefore I’ll invest my effort in trying to get a declaration of nullity because I’m unhappy.”

The bottom line is this: this person APPEARS TO BE pursuing a declaration of nullity simply because he is unhappy… and that’s not how declarations of nullity should be pursued, but rather because the person LEGITIMATELY and OBJECTIVELY (you know, the way tribunals determine) believes that they have an invalid marriage.

I don’t get why you are SO opposed to the advice that a person evaluate where they are putting their energy and what their motivations are… reflection on our priorities and motivations is GOOD advice in more or less EVERY SITUATION we can ever come across… so why are you opposed to it? Why do you take the tactic of trying to make it seem like I’m advocating a person remain if they’re being abused? These seem like rather silly arguments to make regarding the sum of what I’ve said.

I might add that canonical separation could be in the deck of cards. Again, there are good reasons for talking to a canon lawyer who can guide a person through different possibilities (reconciliation, counseling, separation, annulment, etc.) based on that person’s circumstances.

And again, what I will reiterate is that I have never stated that he SHOULDN"T talk to a canon, lawyer. I have only said that he should also consider where energy is being spent and do everything he can to act towards reconciliation (and thus to pursue a declaration of nullity with objectivity rather than impulse).

That is true but recommending convalidation without knowing the facts is irresponsible. If there has been violence, extreme sexual abuse, etc it’s not good to recommend these things.

That’s nice, but I’ve never stated that this person should seek a convalidation. Also to note, there is no evidence stated thus far that “there has been violence, extreme sexual abuse, etc”… only that the OP is unhappy and may or may not have grounds for a declaration of nullity.

That being said, violence and/or abuse does not always constitute grounds for an annulment either (and in those cases I WOULD most certainly recommend legal divorce and separation)

Talking to a priest is the best advice and we should all pray for them.

Actually, I agree with SerraSemper on this one: if one legitimately and objectively believes they have grounds for a declaration of nullity, then they should approach a canon lawyer rather than a priest.