Tell me again about annulment of marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YourNameHere

Guest
Mark 10:1-12

Jesus came into the district of Judea and across the Jordan.
Again crowds gathered around him and, as was his custom,
he again taught them.
The Pharisees approached him and asked,
“Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?”
They were testing him.
He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?”
They replied,
“Moses permitted a husband to write a bill of divorce
and dismiss her.”
But Jesus told them,
“Because of the hardness of your hearts
he wrote you this commandment.
But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together,
no human being must separate.”
In the house the disciples again questioned Jesus about this.
He said to them,
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
commits adultery against her;
and if she divorces her husband and marries another,
she commits adultery.”
 
A declaration of nullity is a statement that a valid marriage NEVER existed. It’s not a divorce. It’s a finding of fact that there were one or more reasons this couple did not have a valid marriage covenant.

Case in point: my husband has a declaration of nullity from his first marriage. He and his ex married primarily because they were pregnant and he was from another country and wanted to stay here for his child (lack of valid consent). His ex later had an affair and left him. She told him, and confirmed to a witness that she had said this, that as far as she was concerned, marriage was glorified common-law with ceremonial benefits, the vows she took were purely symbolic and didn’t really mean anything, and if she wasn’t happy she was free to walk away any time she wanted (lack of understanding of the nature of marriage; neither was Catholic at the time of the marriage and they had a civil wedding with no marriage preparation). They clearly had a civil wedding, they had a conjugal life, and they had a daughter born to them. But what they had was not a valid marriage covenant. All they had was a civil legal contract. That’s why Hubby was able to validly marry me. His first marriage was never valid. In the eyes of God they were never married. (I had never been married prior so I was fine.)
 
If a condition existed at the time the vows were exchanged that one of the parties was not aware of, and if that condition would have caused the unaware party not to give free and full consent to the marriage, it can, and generally will be found null, not to have existed.
RCC nullity is much like the civil concept of ‘informed consent’ when signing a contract. The Church is ruling that no marriage ever existed. Christ’s words, “what God has joined together, no man may divide”. The church, speaking for Christ as Jesus gave it the authority, is saying God never joined the particular couple.
 
Two passages that support the practice of annulments are Matthew 14:3-4 and Mark 6:17-18. In those passages, John the Baptist confronts Herod because he married his brother’s wife. John the Baptist does not tell him that he must divorce her; he tells him, “This marriage is unlawful.” That’s basically a declaration of nullity.

A similar argument for annulments can be made from John 4:16-18, where Jesus speaks to the woman at the well: "Jesus said to her, ‘Go, call your husband, and come here.’ The woman answered him, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right in saying, “I have no husband”; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.’ " From this it appears that Jesus recognizes that her current marriage isn’t valid. That’s a recognition of nullity.

Another biblical argument for annulments is the argument from marital rules. The Old Testament contains rules about who you can and can’t marry in Deuteronomy 22:30 and 22, Leviticus 18:5-20 and Leviticus 20:10-21, and other places. The New Testament contains rules about who you can and can’t marry in 1 Cor. 5:1, Mark 10:1-12, and other places. Now if someone tries to marry in violation of these rules, then their marriage is invalid because that’s what rules do. If nothing was different when you violated the rules, then they wouldn’t mean anything. So the very existence of rules suggests that some marriages (those in violation of the rules) are invalid, and that’s all an annulment says.
 
Hollywood to the rescue…

Buttercup: Oh, Westley, will you ever forgive me?
Westley: What hideous sin have you committed lately?
Buttercup: I got married. I didn’t want to. It all happened so fast.
Westley: It never happened.
Buttercup: What?
Westley: It never happened.
Buttercup: But it did. I was there. This old man said, “Man and wife.”
Westley: Did you say, “I do”?
Buttercup: [confused] No. We sort of skipped that part.
Westley: Then you’re not married. If you didn’t say it, you didn’t do it.

If you have seen The Princess Bride, you have your answer! 😈

So, what happens is someone investigates and finds, for example, that someone did not consent to marriage, but perhaps was forced to marry at gunpoint (or dragged to a ceremony in the case of the Princess), so they are free to marry (someone else).
1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
YourNameHere said:
Mark 10:1-12

Jesus came into the district of Judea and across the Jordan.
Again crowds gathered around him and, as was his custom,
he again taught them.
The Pharisees approached him and asked,
“Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?”
They were testing him.
He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?”
They replied,
“Moses permitted a husband to write a bill of divorce
and dismiss her.”
But Jesus told them,
“Because of the hardness of your hearts
he wrote you this commandment.
But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together,
no human being must separate.”
In the house the disciples again questioned Jesus about this.
He said to them,
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
commits adultery against her;
and if she divorces her husband and marries another,
she commits adultery.”
Click to expand...
As others have said, annulment declares a valid marriage didn’t take place. A person who receives nullity, and marries after that, they don’t get remarried since there was no previous marriage. To the point, A valid marriage can’t be annulled. It is permanent till death of one of the partners.

Still for legal purposes required by society, divorce is required to “legally” end the marriage in the state’s eyes…
 
Last edited:
If 2 people marry and one person said - I do - but did not totally mean it, that marriage is invalid from the start - according to the church. What happens if after a year of arguments they get the graces from God to have a great marriage. If the church said the marriage is invalid because of day one - how dose it become valid.
 
Marriages are presumed to be valid unless proved not to be valid. When a man and women make vows to each other it is presumed that they mean what they say. It seems to me that it is easier now to find reasons for invalidity than in the past. When one signs a mortgage contract to borrow money to buy a home the consent is presumed valid. There are no mortgage tribunals whereby one might claim a defect in consent when signing the contract.
 
“How does it become valid?”
By the grace of God. In specific, through the grace in reconciliation. In essence, the promise of being true to the other becomes valid the moment the person remains true until death. And for those of us who struggle to remain true until death, thank God for reconciliation and the opportunity to grow in doing better and to stop doing bad.

However, your scenario is mistaken. One person saying, “I didn’t totally mean it,” doesn’t necessarily mean the marriage was invalid from the start. The Church knows that marriages go through difficult times in which things are said that aren’t fully meant. The Church would seek more evidence of what did the person totally mean before She declares an annulment.
From your example, if the couple hadn’t divorced civilly, the Church wouldn’t consider the idea of a null marriage.

Consider the parable of the two sons, namely the one who said, “I will not,” but being moved with repentance, listened as the father commanded. In marriage between sinful persons there should be much repentance and reconciliation because often times we say things we do not mean.
 
There are two directions one can look when considering the “ease” of obtaining a decree of nullity.

The first is that the johnny-come-lately science of psychology is relatively new, when one considers 2,000 years of history of the Church. And as the Church has learned more of the psychology and the faults and weaknesses of individuals’ psychological makeup, it has understood the the sacrament of marriage requires more than just showing up and repeating words. Intent is critical. a good book on the matter is Annulment, The Wedding That Was, by Michael Foster Smith. Under defective consent, there are 18 different matters which can result in a failure to consent. Under impediments, there are 12, most of which I suspect we do not see in the US.

Another direction to look is at the fact that society has undergone tremendous change, most particularly in the area of accepted morality, and youth have been targeted by these changes, first and foremost by television, and then by the rest of the culture they live in - meaning school and peers. People seem to be more unchurched than they were 50 years age (actually, the decline in church attendance started in the late 1950’s) which adds to the “find your own sense of right and wrong”. Children as young as 13 are engaging in sexual intercourse, the prime time being not on Friday night dates, but in the hours between when school lets out, and the parents (both working) return home for dinner. People are marrying later and later, and estimates are somewhere around 80 to 90% likelihood that at lest one if not both parties have engaged not once, but serially in sexual intercourse for a number of years.

Actually, it is wonder that anyone can come to the altar with the intent of marrying “until death do us part”.

Oh, and among Catholic young adults, that is, ages 18 to 29, about 18% attend Mass weekly; so many marriages of Catholics are not church weddings.

Certainly the pressure was on in the '60s and the 70’s that “a Catholic marries another Catholic”; however, that has waned over time, and if one of the parties is dating someone they are “in love with” and that party (non-Catholic, perhaps) may have briefly been married, the Catholic individual may have so little real connection with the Faith that they simply go off and get married elsewhere.

And the number of decrees of nullity have been falling, not growing on a yearly basis.

As to mortgages, yes there is a tribunal - it is called (depending on the terms of the mortgage) either an arbitration of a trial. While there have not been a significant number of mortgages being contested, it certainly has happened in the past when things got so loose that the reference was the ability to “fog a mirror” to qualify; not everyone understood all of what they were getting into (such as mortgages with high escalator clauses). There was other chicanery occurring also.
 
What I don’t get about annulments is the attitude of many people who seem to think that you can apply for an annulment and you would get it just because.

If that is the case, then what’s the difference with ordinary divorce?

It’s either the marriage is valid or it isn’t.

I keep on wondering why divorced Catholics who are not annulled are still looking for new romantic prospects. From what I understand, the only person they should be dating is their spouse, no more, no less. Just because they are ‘divorced’ doesn’t automatically mean their marriage is invalid.

All this is confusing for me.
 
If you have seen The Princess Bride, you have your answer!
Click to expand...
“Inconceivable!”
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”
The same with annulments.

As to “divorce”, the word used was porneia. Sounds like porn and it is. Unlawful was its nature, no matter how its meaning has morphed across the centuries since it was written.
 
Last edited:
fin said:
What I don’t get about annulments is the attitude of many people who seem to think that you can apply for an annulment and you would get it just because.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The overwhelming majority of people applying for a marriage annulment in the USA will get it.
fin said:
If that is the case, then what’s the difference with ordinary divorce?
Click to expand...
There is no real difference except in name. According to Joseph Kennedy, marriage annulments are really only Catholic gobbledeegook and no one believes the justification for them. As Cardinal Kasper has said, many annulments are really only Catholic divorces, but in a dishonest way.
Now there are a very few cases where annulments are appropriate, for example, in the case of a situation where the person attempting a marriage is already married and has concealed that fact.
There has been a real change in Catholic teaching on marriage annulments. The proof of this is to look at the statistics in the USA in 1929 and compare them with more recent statistics. In 1929, there were 9 marriage annulments approved in the whole USA. In recent years, the number has been as high as 60,000.
otjm said:
the number of decrees of nullity have been falling, not growing on a yearly basis.
Click to expand...
That’s because fewer people are getting married, and of course, the number is still high, somewhere around 30,000 which is a big jump from 9 in 1929. Why are fewer people getting married? There are various reasons, but one possibility is that people may wonder why they should waste spending 30 or 40 thousand dollars on a wedding and its reception when later on down the road, the Catholic church will declare that they never had been married in the first place? You spend all that money only to find out that you were never married according to the Catholic Church authorities.
This is an example which shows the wisdom of the Eastern Orthodox Church because in the Orthodox Church it is the priest who confers the Sacrament (or Mystery) of Marriage on the couple. This more or less insures that the Sacrament is valid unlike in the Catholic Church where you are never really sure about it. After 30 years of marriage, and several children and grandchildren, you can apply for a marriage annulment by claiming that your consent was defective at the time of the marriage.
 
AlNg said:
Exactly. The overwhelming majority of people applying for a marriage annulment in the USA will get it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but the Vatican is not divinely inspired to know whether a given marriage is valid or not, they have to treat the applications based on the facts presented there. Someone can lie and claim they didn’t understand that marriage is forever, when in truth they did, and if they aren’t discovered then the marriage will be declared null. God knows the truth, though, and manipulating Church Officials doesn’t fool Him.
AlNg said:
There has been a real change in Catholic teaching on marriage annulments. The proof of this is to look at the statistics
Click to expand...
No, the proof of that would be to look at a recent magisterial document that says the Catholic teaching on marriage annulments have changed. The only thing you will find there is, like others here have mentioned, that recent discoveries in the field of Psychology have been taken note of.

A marriage annulment is a terrible thing, as it means you’ve been living in objective sin (no fault to you) for as long as the “marriage” lasted. If you were to suspect that your marriage is invalid, you should apply for annulment even if you don’t want to leave your spouse.

If you’re truthful throughout the process the Church will be able to tell you whether you committed sacrilege or not, and you can put your mind at ease, or marry properly.

It is in no way a divorce, though it is possible for someone to sin and abuse the system to effectively get a divorce. This is in no way legitimate or acceptable.
 
Last edited:
" A marriage annulment is a terrible thing, as it means you’ve been living in sin for as long as the “marriage” lasted. If you were to suspect that your marriage is invalid, you should apply for annulment even if you don’t want to leave your spouse. If you’re truthful throughout the process the Church will be able to tell you whether you committed sacrilege or not, and you can put your mind at ease, or marry properly."

I’m not sure this is right 🤔
 
Which part?

I don’t mean it is a mortal sin to unintentionally marry invalidly.
 
I’ve heard anullment described as a sad thing, not a terrible thing.I’m facing divorce and husband petitioning for annulment ,I’m quite sure there are grounds for anulment .To think I’m sitting here living in sin,committed sacrilege ,not sure about that 🤔
 
Well, it’s not for me to comment on your particular case, but I do stand by what I said.

I am not quoting any authorities on this, though, this is just deduced from my understanding of what annulment is. It is possible I am misunderstanding something.
 
Hey, OP! How convenient that you “select” Mark, which omits the reference to “porneia*” or unlawful marriage. Here is Matthew on the same subject:
8 He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, (*porneia) and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”[d][e]
Click to expand...
I strongly suggest that you research “annulment” and “porneia” before making proclamation against the Church which Christ founded for YOUR salvation.

Not a personal accusation, but a little knowledge goes a long way to cast light into the darkness of ignorance and bigotry.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top