Tips on fighting an annulment

[HenryV]

While I will be the first to defend themait’s right to defend himself in any court, he needs to take a step back and deal with his grief, poor man. He is being very male, a noble reaction, but despite the anger and the prepartion to almost “call to arms”, he is in grief. I think he needs to spend a little time taking care of himself. I bet that hasn’t happened in a while. Some good sleep (think of Abe and the Beaver), a good talk with a priest he trusts (maybe two good talks or three), care of his soul, and some little “treats” such a steak dinner or tickets to sporting event of his choice with a buddy. It won’t solve the issue but it might give him time to think things out a bit, explore the nullity process, heal a little. He’s apparently not even divorced, yet.

I should hope that ecclesiatic courts, while having made mistakes in the past, will not burn themait or his putative wife at the stake to solve the solution of a decree of nullity . I should hope that marriage tribunals have improved their methods over the centuries.

My point was that ecclesiastical courts can indeed be wrong and my tip for him was to appeal to Rome.

Of course he should take good care of his grief.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

You are dishonest. You cut and paste and twist. My post was in response to themait’s saying the Annulments by the Church are laws of men. That’s heresy.

As for the belittling, I referred to the name of the thread, not M’s desire to appeal.

Read your own quotes, though. He didn’t say “annulments by the Church are laws of men;” rather, he said “the tribunal and the anullment process is set up by man” - which is perfectly orthodox. Once again, how are you going to claim otherwise, say that Christ set up the first marriage tribunal and established its procedures? You’ve provided the proof that your charge was off base, so don’t blame me. Quit calling the poor man a heretic.

 

[DebChris]

Wow-there is some real anger and resentment on this board. If you will read my posts. I have said throughout that I believe in my heart that our marriage was valid. I have also said that no one can ever truly know what their partner was thinking at the time of the vows. I have also said that the tribunal and the anullment process is set up by man—decided by man. The only one joined me was God…and therefore, even though I completely respect the Church, the process…if in my heart I believe that I was given the wrong decision, then I will appeal. Knowing that only god and the couple knows what was in their hearts at the time. And from the extensive preparation and discussions I have had with my wife before and after our vows…shed some light on our/her beliefs at the time…but in the process-those are completely opposite…then yes, I will fight.

I am jumping in here without reading the posts that follow. They may have better insight than I do. I like what Deacon Ed wrote.
During the difficult months immediately following my separation and subsequent divorce, the hardest words I heard were not those that berated my husband. Instead, it was “I never saw a more loving family” and the recognition that we were the stereotypical young couple in the front of the church that shocks everybody by their separation.
The grounds for annullment were revealed to me during a counselling session. Yet when I prayed, I heard (verbally or through scripture is irrelevant) God tell me “you have the power to remain faithful.” This does not mean that my husband will ever return to me. What it does mean is that I am not the one to initiate annullment procedures.
The more time passes, the more I believe in the validity of the Sacrament of Matrimony that we bestowed upon each other. You are not alone in your belief. Sometimes we need to hear that.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

How much difference would having a great Canon lawyer make if a case was at first blush given the facts hard for a Tribunal to rule on?

 

[Adonis33]

Read your own quotes, though. He didn’t say “annulments by the Church are laws of men;” rather, he said “the tribunal and the anullment process is set up by man” - which is perfectly orthodox. Once again, how are you going to claim otherwise, say that Christ set up the first marriage tribunal and established its procedures? You’ve provided the proof that your charge was off base, so don’t blame me. Quit calling the poor man a heretic.

If these tribunals were so perfect - why would we be allowed to appeal the decision?

I’m not critisizing the process, it just seems to me that there must be, at least, some expectation of a mistake - otherwise we would not be allowed to appeal.

 

[IrishAm]

Just reiterating as it may have gotten lost in the thread that the Tribunal of TWO diocese are required for a declaration of nullity to be granted or denied.

Could they both be in error in any individual case? Possibly. But it is not my impression that it is a “rubber stamp” approval of the original diocese’s decision. Each look at the documentations in depth.

 

[Chatter163]

Just reiterating as it may have gotten lost in the thread that the Tribunal of TWO diocese are required for a declaration of nullity to be granted or denied.

Could they both be in error in any individual case? Possibly. But it is not my impression that it is a “rubber stamp” approval of the original diocese’s decision. Each look at the documentations in depth.

I would differ in my observations of this. In my former diocese, the ratification by the court of second instance typically took three to four weeks. Within thirty days the petitioner and the court of first instance already had the decree or denial in their hands. This does not suggest an in-depth review by the court of second instance, simply because the times involved do not suggest that thorough reviews were made. Rather, it was explained to petitioners that the court of second instance checked for procedural errors, blatant oversights, missing documentation, etc.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I would differ in my observations of this. In my former diocese, the ratification by the court of second instance typically took three to four weeks. Within thirty days the petitioner and the court of first instance already had the decree or denial in their hands. This does not suggest an in-depth review by the court of second instance, simply because the times involved do not suggest that thorough reviews were made. Rather, it was explained to petitioners that the court of second instance checked for procedural errors, blatant oversights, missing documentation, etc.

Maybe this will help, from this thread:

You asked about the high rate of success in gaining an annulment. In my diocese it works like this. You apply for an annulment and tell your story. The tribunal looks at your case and predetermines if they think it will succeed. They may recommend that you not continue the process because it will probably fail. Many people stop right here and don’t complete the formal application so they don’t get counted as rejections. If the tribunal says it’s ok to continue then it’s 98% certain you will be approved. And that’s why the success rate is so high. The tribunal does this because once you get a rejection you can never reapply so they give the parties an opportunity to gather more information that may have been forgotten.

 

[HenryV]

"An Italian monk has been disciplined for accepting bribes from couples hoping to receive marriage annulments, the ANSA news agency reports.

The unidentified monk reportedly accepted thousands of euros from couples hoping to receive quick decrees of annulment. He was exposed when a private investigator made a secret videotape recording of a meeting in which the monk allegedly solicited a bribe.

Msgr. Vinicio Albenesi, an official of the Church tribunal that disciplined the cleric, told ANSA that the corrupt monk’s actions “border on blasphemy,” and his ecclesiastical crime could “in theory” have brought the penalty of excommunication. Instead the tribunal chose to suspend his priestly faculties."

It’s possible to lie to the courts and get your way. They cannot be infallible.

 

[themait]

I was directed to a website dedicated to preserving the sanctity of this sacrament-Thank you.
When reading it, I was suprised to see that one of the findings that could allow this tribunal to render an annulment could be the use of birth control. For the first 3 years of our marriage, I lived 2 hours away during the week to attend law school. Due to the fact that my wife and I agreed that we didn’t want to have a child in this type of arrangment, with me gone and her being alone and pregnant, we decided to wait and did utilize birth control during most of this time frame. Though we both wanted kids badly, we made this decision together, before we got married, to completely benefit us and our future children. Am I incorrect in worrying that my marriage could possibly be annuled if I used birth control at some point in my marriage—but that this was understood by both parties prior to the marriage—was terminated during the marriage at a later point—and that we both wanted to bring children into our marriage this entire time? I always understood and knew that the purpose or one of the purposes of marriage was to bring children into the world…it was just our thoughtful attempt to make sure that that enviroment was the most beneficial for us and them…
Has anyone had any experiences with the use of birth control–regardless of the reason or the duration—being used to grant an anullment???

 

[JRKH]

I was directed to a website dedicated to preserving the sanctity of this sacrament-Thank you.
When reading it, I was suprised to see that one of the findings that could allow this tribunal to render an annulment could be the use of birth control. For the first 3 years of our marriage, I lived 2 hours away during the week to attend law school. Due to the fact that my wife and I agreed that we didn’t want to have a child in this type of arrangment, with me gone and her being alone and pregnant, we decided to wait and did utilize birth control during most of this time frame. Though we both wanted kids badly, we made this decision together, before we got married, to completely benefit us and our future children. **Am I incorrect in worrying that my marriage could possibly be annuled if I used birth control at some point in my marriage—but that this was understood by both parties prior to the marriage—**was terminated during the marriage at a later point—and that we both wanted to bring children into our marriage this entire time? I always understood and knew that the purpose or one of the purposes of marriage was to bring children into the world…it was just our thoughtful attempt to make sure that that enviroment was the most beneficial for us and them…
Has anyone had any experiences with the use of birth control–regardless of the reason or the duration—being used to grant an anullment???

The highlighted point is the significant one. The fact that you entered into the marriage with the intention of “not being open to life” could be considered grounds for the annulment evev if it was considered to be a temporary expedient and you intended to have children later.

James

 

[RWMorris]

I was directed to a website dedicated to preserving the sanctity of this sacrament-Thank you.
When reading it, I was suprised to see that one of the findings that could allow this tribunal to render an annulment could be the use of birth control. For the first 3 years of our marriage, I lived 2 hours away during the week to attend law school. Due to the fact that my wife and I agreed that we didn’t want to have a child in this type of arrangment, with me gone and her being alone and pregnant, we decided to wait and did utilize birth control during most of this time frame. Though we both wanted kids badly, we made this decision together, before we got married, to completely benefit us and our future children. Am I incorrect in worrying that my marriage could possibly be annuled if I used birth control at some point in my marriage—but that this was understood by both parties prior to the marriage—was terminated during the marriage at a later point—and that we both wanted to bring children into our marriage this entire time? I always understood and knew that the purpose or one of the purposes of marriage was to bring children into the world…it was just our thoughtful attempt to make sure that that enviroment was the most beneficial for us and them…
Has anyone had any experiences with the use of birth control–regardless of the reason or the duration—being used to grant an anullment???

Unfortunately, this may lead to a cause for annulment. It did in my husband’s annulment of his first marriage (it was part of the reason, anyway.). Be prepared for this.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Unfortunately, this may lead to a cause for annulment. It did in my husband’s annulment of his first marriage (it was part of the reason, anyway.). Be prepared for this.

Well, it sounds fortunate for you!

 

[puzzleannie]

this forum has strayed off topic and is now a discussion of possible invalidity of existing marriages. get off that track because the tribunal will not even investigate a marriage until it has broken down completely without hope of reconciliation (usually signalled by civil divorce), so your marriage is presumed valid, so stop speculating.

 

[THurifer2]

I was directed to a website dedicated to preserving the sanctity of this sacrament-Thank you.
When reading it, I was suprised to see that one of the findings that could allow this tribunal to render an annulment could be the use of birth control. For the first 3 years of our marriage, I lived 2 hours away during the week to attend law school. Due to the fact that my wife and I agreed that we didn’t want to have a child in this type of arrangment, with me gone and her being alone and pregnant, we decided to wait and did utilize birth control during most of this time frame. Though we both wanted kids badly, we made this decision together, before we got married, to completely benefit us and our future children. Am I incorrect in worrying that my marriage could possibly be annuled if I used birth control at some point in my marriage—but that this was understood by both parties prior to the marriage—was terminated during the marriage at a later point—and that we both wanted to bring children into our marriage this entire time? I always understood and knew that the purpose or one of the purposes of marriage was to bring children into the world…it was just our thoughtful attempt to make sure that that enviroment was the most beneficial for us and them…
Has anyone had any experiences with the use of birth control–regardless of the reason or the duration—being used to grant an anullment???

Not sure …but birth control itself can contribute to the destruction of a marriage from the spritual decay it causes.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Read your own quotes, though. He didn’t say “annulments by the Church are laws of men;” rather, he said “the tribunal and the anullment process is set up by man” - which is perfectly orthodox. Once again, how are you going to claim otherwise, say that Christ set up the first marriage tribunal and established its procedures? You’ve provided the proof that your charge was off base, so don’t blame me. Quit calling the poor man a heretic.

I admit I was bit strong in calling themait a heretic. But whenever I see “laws of men” I see Protestant all over it. I guess he can appeal all the way to the Pope.

I just don’t understand his purpose for making a painful process even more painful. His failed “marriage” is not the end of the world. It’s not like he’s keeping somebody from committing murder.

But now there is an interesting twist. They practiced artificial birth control, knowing full well it was against the teachings of the Church.

I don’t want to start a discussion about how many Catholics practice birth control. That is for another thread.

 

[qui_est_ce]

this forum has strayed off topic and is now a discussion of possible invalidity of existing marriages. get off that track because the tribunal will not even investigate a marriage until it has broken down completely without hope of reconciliation (usually signalled by civil divorce), so your marriage is presumed valid, so stop speculating.

Themaite, are you divorced yet?

 

[chevalier]

Also, some time ago, when doing some internet research, I read somewhere that someone (I thought it was a recent pope-or cardinal) said that even your marriage is annuled…if you know in your heart that the annulment shouldn’t have been granted…that the tribunal is merely made up of men—and men make mistakes…and therefore the only place that the validity of marriage is known is between a couple and God. Any clues?

Since the marriage is either valid or not, the tribunal can only declare that. And the tribunal isn’t infallible. This means that if the tribunal makes a mistake and rules a valid marriage invalid, that marriage is still there. It’s an unlikely situation that a party would know for sure the tribunal were wrong (it would have to be like a false witness deemed perfectly credible by every tribunal up to Rome), it would be a bad idea to marry again.

 

[themait]

For clarification…my wife has filed for divorce…and it is impossible for me to fight or stop it—it will happen whether or not I want it to or not. Due to the fact that our lives are very entwined in the Church–and I can’t imagine either of us wanting to live the rest of our lives alone and childless-if we are not able to ever get things right between us—I am ASSUMING that my wife will file for an annulment. No guarantee…because obviously she hasn’t even been willing to see a counselor to see if we can get through things or even speak about any of this before or after she made this decision—So I no longer am able to even guess at what she is thinking.

The birth control aspect hurts though. I understand the whole problem the Church has with birth control—I would not choose it either. But for our lives, and the fact that I did not want a pregnant wife living by herself or a baby to be born without a father permanently present-it was a joint decision that we made out of respect for our marriage and our future children. And I know we should have left that chance up to God–but it was what we knew in our hearts was the best for all concerned. I hope this is not held to be a reason that my marriage is invalid—IF AND SHOULD it some to that…but it is scary that that might be the reason that it was supposedly not real.

I know this is a big hypothetical…but I just am trying to figure out from others experiences what I might expect. I would never be anything but completely truthful in such a proceeding…but would a factor such as this…by itself…be a reason to nullify. Or when things like this are present, are more than jsut one factor looked into. I guess what I am asking is if we used birth control at any point in our marriage and thought about using it prior to our marriage—will that be enough to decide that our marriage was never valid? Or will more factors need to be there…or are reasons taken into account etc? Not trying to get out or skew anything about my marriage—but just trying to figure out what to expect.
THanks

 

[chevalier]

this forum has strayed off topic and is now a discussion of possible invalidity of existing marriages. get off that track because the tribunal will not even investigate a marriage until it has broken down completely without hope of reconciliation (usually signalled by civil divorce), so your marriage is presumed valid, so stop speculating.

It’s not about being broken down completely, but about consent not persisting if an impediment or defect of consent persists, or if there was a defect of form and the consent doesn’t persist. This is because you can’t convalidate an invalid marriage without consent or at least in spite of dissent. As for civil divorce, actually, I’ve heard the civil divorce requirement is a way US dioceses avoid lawsuits from people unhappy with the verdict. In other parts of the world, a civil divorce is not required.

If you want my opinion, if there’s something wrong with the validity of a marriage and the consent of the parties to convalidate the marriage isn’t there, I’d rather they examined the canonical validity first and only then made the civil law steps. Otherwise it becomes confusing and a nullity decree becomes a proper annulment in people’s minds. Look - already everyone calls it annulment, in error, because the Church has no power to annul any marriage (even dissolve in some cases such as unconsummated marriage or Pauline privilege, but not annul a marriage in the sense of making a valid marriage void retroactively).

To the Opening Poster:

The Church can’t nullify any marriage. It either exists or it doesn’t. To nullify means to make null, therefore you need something real first, right? If there’s no valid marriage, there’s nothing to nullify. And if it’s valid, the Church can’t change that. Not even the sentence of the tribunal, nor the Pope himself has the power to make invalid a marriage which is valid. The tribunal will strive to find out about the state of the marriage. It won’t change anything. It will only declare how things are.

Also, what happened after wedding can only serve as an indicator of how things were. Nothing that happens after marriage affects the validity of it - if your marriage was valid when you started using birth control, it was valid later and it’s valid now. If your marriage was invalid back then, then the fact whether or not you used birth control has no effect on the validity of your marriage, either.

Final thing, I’m sorry to say this, but your wife’s behaviour - filing for divorce without even discussing the reasons of her decision with you doesn’t make it look like she understands the binding power of marriage or is ready to undertake such obligations at this stage of her life.