The Legitimacy of Today's Annulments.

[Isa_Almisry]

It still does

Yes.

P-H-A-R-I-S-E-E.

They are still good at making null the commandment of God, keeping the letter and ignoring the spirit.

Marriage is a sacrament, which is supposed to be a sign.

What sign is annullment sending?

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

and whom are you calling a Pharisee??

Yes.

P-H-A-R-I-S-E-E.

They are still good at making null the commandment of God, keeping the letter and ignoring the spirit.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Btw, according to canon, there must be grounds for the divorce, i.e. adultery, and only the innocent may remarry, and only after a penance of usually a year. And there are other stipulations:** under no circumstances may an adulterer remarry their “lover.”** The Antiochean Archdiocese recently reiterated that a priest for a remarriage must first ascertain if the present proposed marriage is the result of an affair of the first.

Can you provide links to these parts of Canon Law?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

no one on this forum who has not been party to annulment, been the pastoral advisor for someone seeking annulment, or a member of the diocesan tribunal or review board for a particular annulment, is competent to comment on the grounds on which that marriage was declared null, that is, no valid marriage ever existed. These proceedings are sealed, and even if one of the parties shared info with you, they did not share all of it, because they did not necessarily see all of it.

so to make a statement that “all or most annulments to day are decided on frivolous grounds” is to make a generalization which you are unable to back up with data, as well as a critique, given without sound basis, of the individuals who have made these decisions in one or another diocese. Repeat, if you have not been their your opinion is at best just that, opinion, so be careful about stating opinion as fact.

we have discussed this topic to the nth degree so many times I doubt there is anything new to say, except for more posters to weigh in with personal opinion, of dubious value. Canon law provides this remedy for those in an invalid marriage, and all Catholics who feel they require remedy for a canon law situation are allowed and encouraged to avail themselves of this legal remedy, whether for a marriage or other canon law issue. It is the duty of the bishop of the diocese to facilitate this remedy, and the tribunal is the means by which this is done.

As I have state before, in my opinion based in part on actual statistics from the dioceses in which I have worked, and in part with my experience with families in pastoral settings, many marriages are in fact invalid from inception because of the intransigence or vincible ignorance of either of the parties about the nature and ends of marriage, particular the issue of contraception, but also other related issues. The problem is one of adequate marriage preparation (an area many Catholics strenuously oppose when it impacts on their own convenience or schedules) not necessarily one of easy annulments.

I dare say that if contraception was a grounds for annullment, many are having their marriages and remarrying with the same “impediment.” Statistics alone would indicate that.

Marriage is a sacrament. It is supposed to be a sign. What “sign” is the annullment scheme showing to the world on the nature of marriage?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

and whom are you calling a Pharisee??

Whoever came up with the annullment scheme.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Looking at that link you post repeatedly…**Show me where in today’s code of canon law it says that. **You are posting a lot of misinformation (over and over again). . . .

Apparently someone dragged out the same old stuff again. This happens periodically and very predictably. This must be at least the tenth thread where that’s been done. Oh well.

I have read and have a copy of Lawrence Wrenn’s book. It presumes a technical background in the law and jurisprudence of the Church. It is pretty much one of the standard texts that would sit on a canonist’s shelf. Sometimes canonists will agree with Wrenn and sometimes not. His books are filled with references and translations of Rotal decisions, so you can bet he is extremely orthodox. If he does any speculation about jurisprudence or raises questions about where it is heading, he does it only in his appendices and clearly labels it as such.

All I can say is that **the same snippets that are posted over and over from this book are posted by those who have taken them out of context **(this is called “cherry picking”) **and likely do not possess the background, training and expertise to read it properly. **

The so called “reasons” are not grounds for nullity in any manner whatsoever, but illustrations of points of evidence that would be weighed by a judge to formulate conclusions about the underlying personality, psychological makeup and character that a person brings to the moment of marital consent. They represent findings of fact in particular illustrative cases. These have to then be applied to the person’s capacity for due discretion or competence as canon 1095, nn 2-3 treat them according to approved jurisprudence.

My recommendation for anyone is to actually read the book and those passages in context before accepting snippets that mischaracterize its intent and what it actually says.

Often, he has drawn his examples from cases at the Roman Rota. For example, things like having a “moderately severe Narcissistic Personality Disorder” do not make for a competent contractant to marriage, since it involves a total self donation. A judge would have to apply that in determining if such a person had either: a) insufficient evaluative faculties concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted or b) an incapacity to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The same is true of the other snippets. Proofs are read cumulatively.

Mary’s Advocates site, source of these mischaracterizations, may have started with good intentions, but it is wrong about the law of the Church and matrimonial jurisprudence in a number of cases. In addition to being misleading, it is just defamatory. As to the first point, it consequently disserves those who find their marriages challenged before a tribunal. I would recommend anyone who is the responding party to a nullity case to obtain assistance from a canon lawyer rather than to rely on its advice.

Bishops do have direct control over the canonists they appoint to tribunals and they regulate the tribunal in their diocese. People like Archbishop Burke are members of the CLSA. As its constitution says, its members are concerned with fulfilling their role in the Church “through the proper use of canon law.” Canonists who abuse the law can be removed by their bishop and by the Apostolic Signatura. It has happened. It is groups like Mary’s Advocates who can operate without fear of restraint or correction from Church authority.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you so much for explaining this, Isa Almisry. I get more and more respect for the Orthodox churches, the more I read about them. From what I’d heard before, I just assumed they allowed anyone to divorce and remarry. Instead, it sounds very much in line with scripture, and above all, honest.

As opposed to an unlimited number of annullments?

Btw, according to canon, there must be grounds for the divorce, i.e. adultery, and only the innocent may remarry, and only after a penance of usually a year. And there are other stipulations: under no circumstances may an adulterer remarry their “lover.” The Antiochean Archdiocese recently reiterated that a priest for a remarriage must first ascertain if the present proposed marriage is the result of an affair of the first.

Yes, there is abuse. But I know priests who have refused to marry couples (one saying "I’m a priest, not a witch doctor. Waving my hand is NOT going to make this legit (case was a “remarriage” of an affair), and things like the scandal above at the Knights of Columbus (btw. good for them!).

 

[chevalier]

Ah, one more thing about the “grounds”. While various reasons why a marriage is null may be classified as grounds for giving a nullity decree, a nullity decree is given because, well, the marriage is null (and thus there is no marriage). Properly, they are called “titles” or “titles of nullity”. When talking about such things as staying for several hours a day in a gym, one can’t say that kind of behaviour is per se a title of nullity, or grounds, as it happens already after marriage. Marriages may only be invalid for such reasons as exist at the moment the vows are taken. Behaviours of the kind described are only effects of certain attitudes and those attitudes show that a person isn’t capable of performing the duties of marriage. Cf. can. 1095:

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

(here)

No marriage will ever be null just because someone at some point decided to neglect the wife and go spend time in the gym instead. However, the act of neglecting the spouse may well be a sign of inability to participate in a, “partnership of the whole of life,” (as can. 1055 puts it). Those inabilities result in defects of consent making marriage invalid, which are mentioned in can. 1095. At any rate, those signs of defects of consent are not specific and separate titles on par with error, fraud, simulation etc. They are merely manifestations of the established titles.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Can you provide links to these parts of Canon Law?

I’ve look with no luck (one summarizes the canons, but the references are cut off) for a link to the relevant portions of the Rudder. My personal copy is in storage. Some of the random canons I remember/was able to find:

St. Basil’s Canon IV.

They that marry a second time, used to be under penance a year or two. They that marry a third time, three or four years. But we have a custom, that he who marries a third time be under penance five years, not by canon, but tradition. Half of this time they are to be hearers, afterwards Co-standers; but to abstain from the communion of the Good Thing, when they have shewed some fruit of repentance.

Canon IX.

Our Lord is equal, to the man and woman forbidding divorce, save in case of fornication; but custom requires women to retain their husbands, though they be guilty of fornication. The man deserted by his wife may take another, and though he were deserted for adultery, yet St. Basil will be positive, that the other woman who afterward takes him is guilty of adultery; but the wife is not allowed this liberty. And the man who deserts an innocent wife is not allowed to marry.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xi.html

further miscellania on marital canons from St. Basil:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.cc.html

Trulllo Canon LXXXVII.

She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another, according to the holy and divine Basil, who has gathered this most excellently from the prophet Jeremiah: “If a woman has become another man’s, her husband shall not return to her, but being defiled she shall remain defiled;” and again, “He who has an adulteress is senseless and impious.” If therefore she appears to have departed from her husband without reason, he is deserving of pardon and she of punishment. And pardon shall be given to him that he may be in communion with the Church. But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be “weepers” for a year, “hearers” for two years, “prostrators” for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation [if with tears they do penance].

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.lxxxviii.html

I did come across the following:

To petition for Ecclesiastical Divorce and attend the Spiritual Court should be considered as an extension of the Sacrament of Holy Confession. Its purpose is neither to justify nor condemn anyone, but rather to facilitate the process of healing and reconciliation to the Body of Christ. This is a pastoral and healing ministry, rather than a legalistic formality.
(Procedures of Metropolis of Chicago, September 2004)

The parish priest must exert every effort to reconcile the couple and avert a divorce. However, should he fail to bring about reconciliation, after a civil divorce has been obtained, he will transmit the petition of the party seeking the ecclesiastical divorce, together with the decree of the civil divorce, to the Spiritual Court of the Diocese. The petition must include the names and surnames of the husband and wife, the wife’s surname prior to marriage, their addresses, the name of the priest who performed the wedding, and the date and place of the wedding. The petitioner must be a member in good standing with the parish through which he or she is petitioning for divorce. Orthodox Christians of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese who have obtained a civil divorce but not an eccle¬siastical divorce may not participate in any sacra¬ments of the Church or serve on the Parish Council, Diocesan Council or Archdiocesan Council until they have been granted a divorce by the Church.

goarch.org/en/resources/pastoral/instructions.asp

 

[chevalier]

Marriage is a sacrament. It is supposed to be a sign. What “sign” is the annullment scheme showing to the world on the nature of marriage?

Well, if a nullity decree is given in error, that’s a bad, bad thing and if one were to be granted in some spirit of defiance to the sanctity of marriage, that would be all so much worse. However, not binding people to oaths they took under duress or in error is not a sign of undue laxity. It’s a sign of justice. One can’t be held to a promise he wasn’t able to make.

On the other hand, a divorce is releasing someone from an oath he did presumably validly take. That is a breach in the sanctity of marriage, whereas declaring a null marriage void is not.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

However, not binding people to oaths they took under duress or in error is not a sign of undue laxity. It’s a sign of justice. One can’t be held to a promise he wasn’t able to make.

The thing is, every single decision we make in life is under some form of duress, because there are always negative aspects to any of our choices. And every decision we make in life is based on some kind of error, because we never have complete knowledge of anything.

For example, duress traditionally meant that someone was being threatened with being killed if they didn’t go through with the wedding.

But today, in the judgement of one annulment tribunal judge I met, if a woman is 32 years old, she is incapable of making a free choice to marry, because she is under fear that she will not be able to have children for much longer if she remains single.

One could conceivable claim that every marriage is made under duress, because the single life contains hardships of one kind or another. Unfortunately these things require judgement, and having judges allows the process to be abused.

 

[JRKH]

Actually, verdicts of nullity are not dissolutions. They merely state that a marriage was null from the beginning, therefore there’s no loosing here unless you mean the fact of not holding someone to an oath he attempted but didn’t successfully take. At any are, there’s no dissolution of marriage in a nullity decree. The only cases in which the Pope dissolves marriages are unconsummated marriages and matters of pauline or petrine privileges.

Thanks for the clarification, but we’re splitting hairs here. Jesus did give the Church the authority make determinations on matters of importance to the faithful. These determinations would be upheld by Heaven.

On principle yes, but tribunals are not infalible, in addition to the possibility of being deceived by lying parties or witnesses, falling victim to people’s decaying memories and other such human faults. The Church has the authority to establish (legitimately) tribunals to hear cases where appropriate, but this doesn’t mean that such verdicts are infallible. There’s no, “every tribunal is right in every case,” belief to be adhered to.

This point has been discussed repeatedly here. Of course error can creep into the situation. When this happens sin will attach to the person subverting the system. This is just as personal an issue as whether any individual petition should be granted and does not attach itself to the system itself.

If an annulment is granted due to dishonesty on the part of the petitioner, there lies the sin and not on the system, and that petitioner will stand charged for that sin. The tribunal is not culpable, nor is that person’s next spouse.
If an annulment is wrongly granted due to some intentional error in the system, then those responsible for that error will stand charged. However the petitioner can proceed with his/her life in confidence that they have a legitimate annulment. They cannot incur sin from this.

I must repeat that I believe that there is little problem with the sincerity of the persons involved in the process. As far as discussions regarding what should be considered as valid reasons, that really is a different discussion. The title of the thread is whether the annulments issued today are valid.

Peace
James

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The thing is, every single decision we make in life is under some form of duress, because there are always negative aspects to any of our choices. And every decision we make in life is based on some kind of error, because we never have complete knowledge of anything.

For example, duress traditionally meant that someone was being threatened with being killed if they didn’t go through with the wedding.

But today, in the judgement of one annulment tribunal judge I met, if a woman is 32 years old, she is incapable of making a free choice to marry, because she is under fear that she will not be able to have children for much longer if she remains single.

One could conceivable claim that every marriage is made under duress, because the single life contains hardships of one kind or another. Unfortunately these things require judgement, and having judges allows the process to be abused.

In Orthodox theology in marriage each partner is to compliment the other in salvation. Which I’m afraid each partner is going to be incomplete (not good for man to be alone is frequently cited in Constantinople’s rite), doesn’t that make all Orthodox marriages ipso facto null? Btw, according to the Orthodox, the Christ, through the Church in the person of the priest marries the couple (the Eastern service is modeled on the rite of baptism), the couple do not marry themselves.

 

[chevalier]

The thing is, every single decision we make in life is under some form of duress, because there are always negative aspects to any of our choices. And every decision we make in life is based on some kind of error, because we never have complete knowledge of anything.

A normal person, within some normal standard of sanity, maturity, responsibility, is able to marry. A person who cannot possibly perform the duties of marriage, cannot marry. A person who can’t stay faithful to one person, for instance, can’t marry. Also someone who specifically excludes one of the three goods of marriage: faith (fidelity), offspring, sacrament (indissolubility), can’t marry either. Someone who is deceived by intentional fraud or by an action of a notorious liar, cannot be held to an oath so fraudulently obtained - that oath doesn’t bind. It would be cruel and against reason to pretend those cases are real marriages. Marriage is about the real substance, not about magical gestures or words.

For example, duress traditionally meant that someone was being threatened with being killed if they didn’t go through with the wedding.

Yes. However, not the coercive act makes duress, but the effect it has on the mind of the coerced person makes coercion effective. Therefore any effective means of coercion creates duress. Even if a person is actually mistaken as to the existence of that threat, it may still be duress. Remember, we’re talking about substance, not about formal acts or wordings, e.g. someone stuck a gun to someone’s head, ergo it’s invalid, if no one did, then a prerequisite formal action - almost like an act of magical significance - is lacking… that’s not how it works.

But today, in the judgement of one annulment tribunal judge I met, if a woman is 32 years old, she is incapable of making a free choice to marry, because she is under fear that she will not be able to have children for much longer if she remains single.

I’m surprised by that kind of conclusion, in fact. The kind of fear you mention, however, may well have an overwhelming effect clouding the reason and binding the will, so without knowing the concrete case, I’d rather not speak. At any rate, if someone first marries at an age of 32 and then cites duress, I think that person is hardly able to marry, therefore perhaps by such immature behaviour she’s proving her case.

One could conceivable claim that every marriage is made under duress, because the single life contains hardships of one kind or another.

Not really. Those dreaded singles by choice choose single life because they don’t have to split the salary, attach themselves to one person, depend on another, allow their happiness or fulfilment to be jeopardised by someone else. To them the disadvantages of marriage prevail over the advantages.

Unfortunately these things require judgement, and having judges allows the process to be abused.

Actually, let me once again bring up my reflection about the possibility that people going back on their choices and citing bizarre grounds perhaps actually prove their marriages to have been concluded without the sufficient use of reason, without enough understanding of Christian marriage, without enough ability to commit. Those could all be nullity titles (defects of consent).

 

[chevalier]

Thanks for the clarification, but we’re splitting hairs here. Jesus did give the Church the authority make determinations on matters of importance to the faithful. These determinations would be upheld by Heaven.

An erroneous determination made as a result of a lie by a witness will not be determined not only in Heaven but also on earth if it comes out the witness lied. Same with other defects of the verdict. Subsequent marriages will be invalid as well. Same as when a spouse considered dead is actually found alive after many years - an erroneous verdict does not change facts.

If an annulment is granted due to dishonesty on the part of the petitioner, there lies the sin and not on the system, and that petitioner will stand charged for that sin. The tribunal is not culpable, nor is that person’s next spouse.

If an annulment is wrongly granted due to some intentional error in the system, then those responsible for that error will stand charged. However the petitioner can proceed with his/her life in confidence that they have a legitimate annulment. They cannot incur sin from this.

I’m sorry, but that’s not entirely true. If a person knows that his marriage was declared null as a result of fraud, coercion or even simple error, that person is not free to marry. If the person has full knowledge that the nullity decree was given as a result of e.g. lying witnesses or threats to a judge or any other such factor, “marrying” and having marital relations could incur the sin of fornication.

You apparently believe that the declaration of nullity is a true “annulment”. I must insist that that impression comes from the popular but erroneous use of the term “annulment”. The term “annulment” is proper for situations when a decision which was valid is retroactively cancelled. A declaration of nullity has no such power, nor does it claim to have it. Nullity trials are not sacramental acts, they are judicial proceedings. They have no power of dissolving an objectively valid marriage.

I must repeat that I believe that there is little problem with the sincerity of the persons involved in the process.

Not always. There’s much less of a problem than in civil law cases, since if people care enough for their souls to seek a decree of nullity, they will normally care enough not to lie (as someone said here before me), but in some cases they will, especially if they need a new ecclesiastical marriage for some reasons (e.g. what the community will say, or in the past, dynastic inheritance).

 

[bobzills]

Apparently someone dragged out the same old stuff again. This happens periodically and very predictably. This must be at least the tenth thread where that’s been done. Oh well.

I have read and have a copy of Lawrence Wrenn’s book. It presumes a technical background in the law and jurisprudence of the Church. It is pretty much one of the standard texts that would sit on a canonist’s shelf. Sometimes canonists will agree with Wrenn and sometimes not. His books are filled with references and translations of Rotal decisions, so you can bet he is extremely orthodox. If he does any speculation about jurisprudence or raises questions about where it is heading, he does it only in his appendices and clearly labels it as such.

All I can say is that **the same snippets that are posted over and over from this book are posted by those who have taken them out of context **(this is called “cherry picking”) **and likely do not possess the background, training and expertise to read it properly. **

The so called “reasons” are not grounds for nullity in any manner whatsoever, but illustrations of points of evidence that would be weighed by a judge to formulate conclusions about the underlying personality, psychological makeup and character that a person brings to the moment of marital consent. They represent findings of fact in particular illustrative cases. These have to then be applied to the person’s capacity for due discretion or competence as canon 1095, nn 2-3 treat them according to approved jurisprudence.

My recommendation for anyone is to actually read the book and those passages in context before accepting snippets that mischaracterize its intent and what it actually says.

Often, he has drawn his examples from cases at the Roman Rota. For example, things like having a “moderately severe Narcissistic Personality Disorder” do not make for a competent contractant to marriage, since it involves a total self donation. A judge would have to apply that in determining if such a person had either: a) insufficient evaluative faculties concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted or b) an incapacity to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The same is true of the other snippets. Proofs are read cumulatively.

Mary’s Advocates site, source of these mischaracterizations, may have started with good intentions, but it is wrong about the law of the Church and matrimonial jurisprudence in a number of cases. In addition to being misleading, it is just defamatory. As to the first point, it consequently disserves those who find their marriages challenged before a tribunal. I would recommend anyone who is the responding party to a nullity case to obtain assistance from a canon lawyer rather than to rely on its advice.

Bishops do have direct control over the canonists they appoint to tribunals and they regulate the tribunal in their diocese. People like Archbishop Burke are members of the CLSA. As its constitution says, its members are concerned with fulfilling their role in the Church “through the proper use of canon law.” Canonists who abuse the law can be removed by their bishop and by the Apostolic Signatura. It has happened. It is groups like Mary’s Advocates who can operate without fear of restraint or correction from Church authority.

That’s all interesting, but the bottom line is that the statistics of 9 annulments per year in 1930, compared with more than 60,000 per year recntly, in the USA combined with the message of Pope John Paul II to the Roman Rota, indicate that the psychological grounds for declaring a marriage annulled have been broadened to an extent which was not conceivable in apostolic times.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m surprised by that kind of conclusion, in fact. The kind of fear you mention, however, may well have an overwhelming effect clouding the reason and binding the will, so without knowing the concrete case, I’d rather not speak. At any rate, if someone first marries at an age of 32 and then cites duress, I think that person is hardly able to marry, therefore perhaps by such immature behaviour she’s proving her case.

It wasn’t a situation like that. My girlfriend and I were having a chat with this tribunal judge priest because I wanted to find out more about why annulments are given (my girlfriend had been through the annulment process but didn’t know much about it). As an example, he gave reasons why either of us would have grounds for annulment if we got married. Her, because she was 32 years old with no kids, and me, because I have social anxiety issues (based on his observation of me as being shy in social situations, not a formal diagnosis). It wasn’t something either of us brought up… we weren’t looking for reasons why we couldn’t get married.

 

[dulcissima]

That’s all interesting, but the bottom line is that the statistics of 9 annulments per year in 1930, compared with more than 60,000 per year recntly, in the USA combined with the message of Pope John Paul II to the Roman Rota, indicate that the psychological grounds for declaring a marriage annulled have been broadened to an extent which was not conceivable in apostolic times.

I’m not sure why you are seeing that as the bottom line. Have you not read the posts on this thread addressing the 1930 statistics vs. the present time? Did you not read the entire address by Pope John Paul II? It’s as if you are not absorbing any information that would challenge the notion that you seem to cherish, that the Church is in error and tribunals are handing out annulments to anyone who wants them.

 

[JRKH]

An erroneous determination made as a result of a lie by a witness will not be determined not only in Heaven but also on earth if it comes out the witness lied. Same with other defects of the verdict. Subsequent marriages will be invalid as well. Same as when a spouse considered dead is actually found alive after many years - an erroneous verdict does not change facts.

I wouldn’t dispute this. But I think that you will agree that this circumstance is highly unlikely.

I’m sorry, but that’s not entirely true. If a person knows that his marriage was declared null as a result of fraud, coercion or even simple error, that person is not free to marry. If the person has full knowledge that the nullity decree was given as a result of e.g. lying witnesses or threats to a judge or any other such factor, “marrying” and having marital relations could incur the sin of fornication.

So you believe that a person who knowingly subverts the process will be scrupulous enough not to remarry? Here again this really is a matter of an individual’s sin and not a problem with the process.

You apparently believe that the declaration of nullity is a true “annulment”. I must insist that that impression comes from the popular but erroneous use of the term “annulment”. The term “annulment” is proper for situations when a decision which was valid is retroactively cancelled. A declaration of nullity has no such power, nor does it claim to have it. Nullity trials are not sacramental acts, they are judicial proceedings. They have no power of dissolving an objectively valid marriage.

Well as I have said repeatedly, I am no Canon Lawyer.
However, when a tribunal validly excersizes its authority in granting a decree which was honestly asked for the participants will incur no sin by subsequent actions taken in good faith. i.e. remarriage.
That was really my main point.

Not always. There’s much less of a problem than in civil law cases, since if people care enough for their souls to seek a decree of nullity, they will normally care enough not to lie (as someone said here before me), but in some cases they will, especially if they need a new ecclesiastical marriage for some reasons (e.g. what the community will say, or in the past, dynastic inheritance).

I believe that you and I are pretty much on the same page. My posts have generally been directed at the validity of the general process, which was the initial discussion. Your points are, of course, valid but point more to specific special circumstances.

As has been said several times in this thread, those who care enough about their souls to enter the process, are unlikely to lie. Likewise those who review and rule on the petitions are unlikely to (name removed by moderator)eril their own souls by deliberately subverting the process.

Peace
James

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It wasn’t a situation like that. My girlfriend and I were having a chat with this tribunal judge priest because I wanted to find out more about why annulments are given (my girlfriend had been through the annulment process but didn’t know much about it). As an example, he gave reasons why either of us would have grounds for annulment if we got married. Her, because she was 32 years old with no kids, and me, because I have social anxiety issues (based on his observation of me as being shy in social situations, not a formal diagnosis). It wasn’t something either of us brought up… we weren’t looking for reasons why we couldn’t get married.

Oh then I asked about how the church doesn’t allow a marriage to be dissolved, and how it fit into that, and he got all upset and went on about how “the Pope doesn’t know what things are like here in North America…” etc. It was really disturbing.