The theological basis of annulments

[dch1983]

Not sure if this belongs in a different topical area…
What is the theology behind granting annulments? My understanding is that the RCC prohibits divorce because marriage is Sacramental in that it is an act of God and because God is present and, therefore, “let no man separate”. Also, divorce is not permissible because marriage between a man and a woman is symbolic of the marriage between Christ and his Church. Am I correct so far? If not, perhaps my question ends here for now… But if these are correct, I do not understand the theological basis for granting annulments. An annulment happens when the Church determines that God was not present and the marriage is therefore not valid, correct? To myself, obviously not a cradle-Catholic, this seems like a practice instituted so that the Church has a way to permit divorce in certain circumstances. Any explanation or dialogue would be welcomed…

 

[1ke]

I highly recommend the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster. It will answer your question in greater detail than is possible in this format.

In brief, you are correct a marriage that is a valid Sacrament can never be dissolved. The process of determining validity is precisely that, an investigation to determine if a valid Sacrament took place.

If it did not, then there is no bond and therefore the persons are free to marry-- note they are not free to marry “again”, they are free to marry validly.

If it is found to be valid, then the bond exists and no one may dissolve it and contract another marriage.

No, it is not a “Catholic divorce”. It is equivalent to determining if a convert was validly baptized for example. Sometimes there must be an investigation to determine whether or not the Sacrament was validly administered. If it is found to be a valid, Trinitarian baptism then no baptism is performed because Baptism is permanent and indelible. If it is found that no valid baptism was performed, then the person receives their first and only valid Baptism.

I really encourage you to get the book.

 

[dch1983]

1ke,

Thanks very much for your response. My next post was going to ask for a recommendation on a good book on the matter. Foster’s book, as well as another one by Edward Peters, were ones I came across. I will seek out that text and hopefully it will help clear it up for me, because I know I am not completely informed right now…

Thanks again…

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Not sure if this belongs in a different topical area…
What is the theology behind granting annulments? My understanding is that the RCC prohibits divorce because marriage is Sacramental in that it is an act of God and because God is present and, therefore, “let no man separate”. Also, divorce is not permissible because marriage between a man and a woman is symbolic of the marriage between Christ and his Church. Am I correct so far? If not, perhaps my question ends here for now… But if these are correct, I do not understand the theological basis for granting annulments. An annulment happens when the Church determines that God was not present and the marriage is therefore not valid, correct? To myself, obviously not a cradle-Catholic, this seems like a practice instituted so that the Church has a way to permit divorce in certain circumstances. Any explanation or dialogue would be welcomed…

Let’s say that Bloggs, an extreme socialist, fakes his suicide to escape from the Ruthemelian government’s death squads. A couple of years later, the Riuthemeilain government is overthrown in a coup, and Bloggs decides to make a reappearance. However his wife has since remarried. Whose wife is she?
Actually, the church says she is Blogg’s. The second marriage wasn’t valid, because it was based on a misconception. So the seconfd marraige is declared null and void.

That’s bascially annullment.

 

[dch1983]

Let’s say that Bloggs, an extreme socialist, fakes his suicide to escape from the Ruthemelian government’s death squads. A couple of years later, the Riuthemeilain government is overthrown in a coup, and Bloggs decides to make a reappearance. However his wife has since remarried. Whose wife is she?
Actually, the church says she is Blogg’s. The second marriage wasn’t valid, because it was based on a misconception. So the seconfd marraige is declared null and void.

That’s bascially annullment.

I understand that case, but I hardly think most annulments are granted for reasons such as the situation you pose here. My question is more directed toward those marriages that were, by and large, “normal” but were still annulled. What is the reasoning or justification for these? Or does this even happen? Some of what I have read suggests that it does, and that it doesn’t require something as clear-cut as adultery or a fake suicide. Although your point is well-taken…

 

[1ke]

I understand that case, but I hardly think most annulments are granted for reasons such as the situation you pose here. My question is more directed toward those marriages that were, by and large, “normal” but were still annulled. What is the reasoning or justification for these? Or does this even happen? Some of what I have read suggests that it does, and that it doesn’t require something as clear-cut as adultery or a fake suicide. Although your point is well-taken…

Please note, and the Foster book explains this very well, that actions subsequent to the marriage are not in and of themselves grounds for annulment (for example “adultery”) although they may be evidence of an antecedent issue that was present at the time the vows were exchanged.

There are two main components of the marriage sacrament that come under scrutiny (beyond the canon law impediments such as not marrying siblings, etc) and those are intent and consent. Defects in intent and consent at the time the vows were exchanged render a marriage invalid. The specific grounds upon which one of these items if found to be defective are quiet specific to the individual case.

 

[quasimodo]

A marriage has to have some “content” (for lack of a better word). Without that “content” then marriage is, as they say, just a piece of paper. But in the eyes of the church marriage must never be “just a piece of paper.” The annulment process looks to see if the “content” was present at the time of the wedding. If there was no “content” at the wedding, then the wedding produced a piece of paper - not a marriage.

What content do they look for? Things like: did the couple give consent freely and fully. Did they intend a fruitful union… etc.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I understand that case, but I hardly think most annulments are granted for reasons such as the situation you pose here. My question is more directed toward those marriages that were, by and large, “normal” but were still annulled. What is the reasoning or justification for these? Or does this even happen? Some of what I have read suggests that it does, and that it doesn’t require something as clear-cut as adultery or a fake suicide. Although your point is well-taken…

Full consent of both parties is required for a valid marriage. Annulment is a decree that takes place when it is determined that the marriage was not “valid” from the very beginning. Something existed at the time of the marriage that prevented one of the parties from joining with full consent. So, lets say that one of the parties, say, the husband, is a notorious womanizer and has absolutely no intention of keeping the marriage sacred. Wife does not know this, so she marries him. Three years later she finds out he has had a series of girlfriends from the beginning of the marriage. Since she was ignorant of the character of her husband her consent to marry him was not a full consent. The same could be said about abuse situations.

There are many Catholics out there who file for annulment on the basis that “she/he did this or that” after the marriage. Like the single affair that occured 8 years after the couple was married. That is not like the situation I described above. So, those Catholics are usually denied an annulment. It all depends on if you can show circumstances that existed at the time of the vows that show you did not enter into the marriage with full consent.

That is my take on it anyway…

 

[Denise_Shae]

1ke,

Thanks very much for your response. My next post was going to ask for a recommendation on a good book on the matter. Foster’s book, as well as another one by Edward Peters, were ones I came across. I will seek out that text and hopefully it will help clear it up for me, because I know I am not completely informed right now…

Thanks again…

I purchased the Edward Peters Book, because I got fed up with people sarcastically referring to annulments as “Catholic Divorce” (especially family members) and wanted to be able to refute their claims.

It’s a very informative book, but as 1ke stated previously, there’s just too much content to include on this forum.

Do you have a specific question I can look up for you? I’d be happy to do it.

God Bless!

 

[dch1983]

Do you have a specific question I can look up for you? I’d be happy to do it.

Thanks very much for offering, Denise Shae. I actually don’t really have a specific instance in mind. I think I definitely need to read one of the books mentioned above, because, although helpful, these brief explanations are not closing the door on it for me. I don’t regard annulments simply as “Catholic divorce” per se, but right now I am questioning WHAT is determined and HOW it is determined in order to come to the conclusion that a marriage was invalid. What is considered when looking back at the “intent and consent” portion of the marriage? What does the process of coming to this decision consist of? What “evidence” is reviewed? These are just a few of my questions… Like you said, I’m sure it’s way too much to get into here so I’m going to look into getting ahold of one of those books and go from there. Thanks for the posts and willingness to help explain!

 

[Denise_Shae]

Thanks very much for offering, Denise Shae. I actually don’t really have a specific instance in mind. I think I definitely need to read one of the books mentioned above, because, although helpful, these brief explanations are not closing the door on it for me. I don’t regard annulments simply as “Catholic divorce” per se, but right now I am questioning WHAT is determined and HOW it is determined in order to come to the conclusion that a marriage was invalid. What is considered when looking back at the “intent and consent” portion of the marriage? What does the process of coming to this decision consist of? What “evidence” is reviewed? These are just a few of my questions… Like you said, I’m sure it’s way too much to get into here so I’m going to look into getting ahold of one of those books and go from there. Thanks for the posts and willingness to help explain!

Hi dch1983,

I did an online search for the lowest price and found it for $13.03 at: www.buy.com
That includes S&H charges. (Which is a really good deal.)

BTW, The name of the book is: Annulments in the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough Questions (Paperback); by Author: Edward N. Peters, J.D., J.C.D.
ISBN: 1932645004

I’m sorry I couldn’t be of more help to you. I really try to avoid telling people to go read a book, but there’s so much invovled with Annulments, that I can’t give you definite and accurate answers.
They’re taken very seriously and each case is different.

We’d have to copy the whole book to give you concise answers.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

God Bless!

 

[dch1983]

Denise Shae,

No problem whatsoever. I think it is a more diligent learning process to seek out the answers to my questions and put the effort in to reading about them rather than relying on people to tell me. I still need to decide between the two texts - Foster and Peters - as both have been recommended to me here. I have so much reading on my plate - this is just one of many books I need to read! It’s kind of overwhelming, but also very exciting!

Thanks again, and God Bless…