Tips on fighting an annulment

[themait]

You know Qui—
I have no idea why you have it in for me. The only thing I have ever said is that I know in my heart that the marriage I had with my wife was with her and God…and was valid from my perspective. No one but she and God knows what was in her heart. But from what we talked about…before and after our wedding day…how we lived our lives—I would have a hard time figuring out from her perspective, how this marriage was invalid.

From the whole birth control issue while I finished school—I guess if that is telling the tribunal that we didn’t truly understand that our marriage was to have children, among other things, than that is sad and wrong…because we never doubted the lengths we would go to for children…just didn’t want them to be brought into the world in that situation. From my personal view.,…it was a lesser of two evils… but who am I to say.

But if I truly view my marriage as valid and something holy…who are you to judge me if I think that a process that is set up and decided by men —I find less binding on my life and heart than the bond that I believe God set upon me. It is the Protestants that left the Church becuase of thier beliefs in marriage, divorce and other things. I am not picking and choosing…I am following the teachings about marriage of the Church and Jesus. I am sorry if my resolve to save what I think is a sacred bond makes you hurt or something…I never intended to hurt anyone or to make anyone question anything about themselves or their relationship.

I never expected to keep my wife in a marriage if she felt like she couldn’t fix things with me…or prevent her from remarrying, having kids, or being happy. I said that that was my fate for believing that my marriage was true…and that it was my lifelong calling to honor her always as my wife…

SO BACK OFF ME!!

 

[THurifer2]

…I am following the teachings about marriage of the Church and Jesus. !

If you believe the teachings of the church on Marriage then you WILL accept the tribunals ruling if it comes to an annulment.

You mentioned birth control ( which is a pretty personal matter) since you would share that one with us could you explain why your wife wants a divorce?

 

[qui_est_ce]

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.

There are worse things than dad being out of town and being pregnant. You could be childless forever.

My husband used to be gone at sea for up to 5 months at a time. I had a newborn in a state far from my own family. We moved 5 times in a five year period. At several points of the moves, I had a 2 year old, had two miscarriages, was pregnant and had a two year old, and then had two little ones. Moving, moving. If it hadn’t been for the babies, and how much I loved them, I’m not sure I would have managed as well. It was the children that helped me make friends, by going to story hour at the library, going to the playground. I am truly blessed. Unfortunately Mr. WRONG (my ex), does not know the meaning of being blessed.

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

You should really talk to a priest. All you are getting here is pros and cons, and people second guessing your motives. Each situation is different. You really need to put yourself in God’s hands, because:

When your are down to nothing, God is up to something.

 

[chevalier]

If you believe the teachings of the church on Marriage then you WILL accept the tribunals ruling if it comes to an annulment.

Sorry, sir, tribunals only declare, they do not create a new reality, which means they can’t help it if it’s really valid or null, they can only find out and say what they are morally certain (a legal term) about. Also, they aren’t infallible, which means they can make mistakes. This means that refusing to accept a verdict of nullity and remarry because you believe the verdict was in error, does not mean you reject the teachings of the Church on marriage. In fact, if you knew the evidence to be false and the tribunal didn’t believe you but instead chose to rely on that evidence for the verdict, you’d have the moral obligation not to remarry in such circumstances. Or, also hypothetically, if you had a spouse who lied to the pope himself, together with a crowd of false witnesses and a ton of forged evidence, and convinced him to dissolve your marriage as unconsummated, that marriage would still hold.

 

[otjm]

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?

Yes. You may feel, with all the emotions at your disposal and some you didn’t know that you had, that your marriage was valid.

But the difficult part is separating out your feelings, which are emotions, from facts. One of the facts is that the tribunal will make a desicison, and that decision will automatically be appealed to a second tribunal. If the two of them decide that there was an impediment at the time of the marriage, or that consent was not given as the Church (not you) understands consent, then the Church, which has the power over the sacraments to determine whether or not a sacrament was confected, and exercises that power through the tribunal hearings, will have spoken. At that point, the issue may not be so much what you feel, but what you will. The question, to put it another way, is whether you can submit your will to the decision of the Church.

Some cardinal may have said something, but a Cardinal, in spite of the fact that he wears red and is a prince of the Church, is not the Church itself, nor in being made Cardinal is he given the Charism of infallibility. Putting your hopes in his statement is a slippery path to walk.

Let’s put his alleged comment another way: if the tribunals’ decsion is that the decree of nullity is given, you are not thereby required to marry again. You can choose celibacy as a way of life. I would suggest that if the Church has spoken, that you need to pick up wahtever pieces are left of your life - and it will be in pieces - and get about the business of following Christ in whatever fashion you are able. Taht does not necessarily require that you remarry; on the other hand, if the Church has spoken, then it will be up to you as to how you come to terms with the rest of your life. You can choose to reject the Church’s findings; you can be bitter about your wife or the Church, or you can forgive and move on. No matter how you react, life will move on; the question will be how you move on.

The percentage of annulments given is irrelevant for several reasons. First, many of the cases - something between 20 and 30% possibly in any given year, and perhaps more, are issues of form; someone who was required to be married in front of a priest did not do so. Those are in the “slam dunk” category.

Second, more cases are those arising from a Protestant or non-Christian marrying a non-Catholic. They subsequently divorce and the non-Catholic wants to marry a Catholic (or may already have, and they are not trying to straighten out their marriage).

Third, many cases never get filed; someone is told they have no grounds; or they are told they have grounds and for personal reasons they do not file; of they file but never complete the case. The latter is not one of the cases that is not granted an annulment; it has no decision at all.

Fourth, some cases are tried, and the tribunal finds there are no grounds for a decree of nullity.

Fifth, none of the above are your case. The likelyhood of any other case ultimately has little or no bearing on yours; and trying to find out what the verdict rate is in the diocese your case may be filed in is not going to tellyou anything but a number; without knowing the facts of each and every case, you have no way of knowing whether they were solid cases, or ones that should ahve had another decision.

I do not know the grounds on which cases are appealed to the Rota; however, the Rota takes very few appeals, which would seem to imply (but may not) that they need some grounds on which to take an appeal. My understanding is that if the first tribunal decides one way and the second dicides the opposite, they will hear it. I do not know if they will try a case in which both tribunals grant nullity.

Again to the issue, though: can the tribunals make a mistake? Yes. Can you rely on the decision the tribunal makes?

Can you rely on any other decision the Church makes? Thre are prescious few things thqat the Church has defined, when it gets right down to it. You have a moral right to accept the decision and then make any further decisions in your life in reference to that. That is, you have the ability to remarry if the decision is a nullity, and do not if it is not. In neither case are you required to get remarried; and if your wife does not file a case, you are not required to file either.

 

[otjm]

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?

You misperceive how the cases are presented. A Canon lawyer represents one party; if the wife in this case files, the lawyer representig him can only produce evidence from him that he feels he doesn’t have a case - that is, showing the courtship, the discussions, the marriage prep. His Canon lawyer doesn’t try to tear her case down; he only can build his case up.

That leaves her to construct her case. And one would presume she would present the best case possible.

But even assuming the reverse, that he filed for the decree and tried to present a case that would show no impdeiments, and full consent, he can only present his side. She then can present her side, which means that if there is grounds, it is from her. His move first will not prevent her from presenting her best case.

 

[otjm]

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.

It appears to be more an issue of reasonable checks and balances for a serious matter.

 

[otjm]

Sorry, sir, tribunals only declare, they do not create a new reality, which means they can’t help it if it’s really valid or null, they can only find out and say what they are morally certain (a legal term) about. Also, they aren’t infallible, which means they can make mistakes. This means that refusing to accept a verdict of nullity and remarry because you believe the verdict was in error, does not mean you reject the teachings of the Church on marriage. In fact, if you knew the evidence to be false and the tribunal didn’t believe you but instead chose to rely on that evidence for the verdict, you’d have the moral obligation not to remarry in such circumstances. Or, also hypothetically, if you had a spouse who lied to the pope himself, together with a crowd of false witnesses and a ton of forged evidence, and convinced him to dissolve your marriage as unconsummated, that marriage would still hold.

I understand what you are saying.

However, I also have a fair amount of experience with people in rather dire circumstances. It has been my observation that there are too many people with the attitude of “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up!”. Coupled with that are a number of people who truly do not understand or want to understand the grounds for a decree of nullity , and/or they are convinced they were and are mind readers. And add to that people who have agendas which are not visible to themselves, and you get people who are convinced, never mind the facts, that reality is something other than what everyone else perceives it to be.

I am no fool; neither am I so naive as to beleive that a court could not make a mistake. On the other hand, for all the huffing and puffing that has gone on about decrees of nullity - the increase, the ratios, etc., I do not believe that the people who sit in these tribunals are fools, idiots, or out to rewrite either the Gospels or the Church.

I have met too many people in the civil and criminal court systems who are convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever - not reasonable doubt, but any doubt, that their version of reality is correct and the whole rest of the world is wrong. And I kid you not, they are true believers.

Ultimately, assuming his wife presents a case, and presuming that a decree is granted, somewhere along the line he will have to come to terms with it or risk getting caught in a time warp of his own making. He is morally free to decide, should that happen, that he will choose not to marry again; but I strongly suspect that he will not know if there were lies or false evidence; I truly do not expect the court to “make the case” where one does not exist, and encouraging him with comments about the “failability” of the court system is not allowing him to come to terms with what is not only going on now in his marriage, but what was going on before. I suspect a big red flag that no one else seems to suspect, and that has to do with the entire dynamics of his marriage, from the time he first met her.

 

[otjm]

I really hope I can fix things with my wife…but I have no idea what she is thinking…or making her decisions now or anything.

I know without a shadow of a doubt that our marriage is valid, holy, and that we entered into it with full understanding of what the Catholic Church and God was asking of us. I know in my heart that if an annulment is granted, that it will be wrong, and that I will fight it to the death.

Let’s take the second paragraph first. What you know is not what you say you know, and it is one of the harder things to come to terms with through a divorce and possible decree of nullity.

What you know is what you think determines if you were free of impediments and whether or not you freely gave consent. In short, you obviously are not familiar with the grounds of a decree of nullity, so at this point you think that there is nothing on your side that would indicate that a sacrament did not occur at the wedding (as that is the determining point). Your posts seem to indicate that you went to law school and perhaps graduated; you don’t say if you have practiced. This is not a civil case; the tribunal does not operate as the court system you may be familiar with.

Waht you don’t know, I strongly suspect, is what she thinks or knows.

My first suggestion is that if you want to understand what may happen, you need to get a book that talks about decrees of nullity; there are several around. I am not talking about one that tries to tell you how to defeat a case, but one that explains the grounds for a decree. If nothing else, it will be the start of understanding what you are about, and understanding a bit better how the system works. In short, you are not going to “fight” this case; and until you get that out of your system, you are just going to dig yourself a deeper hole and stew more.

I have been around this business of divorce stuff for about 29 years now, and I have learned a thing or two. One of them is that divorces don’t occur in a vacuum; whatever has caused her to walk didn’t happen 6 months ago, and proably not a year and a half ago. Something has been stirring for a long time. You talk about not knowing what she is thinking; but I have to wonder when you really did. You may be very convinced that you did; that you have all along, and that in itself may be the problem, or one of the problems that has lead you to this point.

Until you work this out, you not only will not reconcile with her, but you will not reconcile with yourself.

Another way of saying it is that it takes two to make a marriage, and it also takes two to make a fight. It may well be your perception that you two have not fought; but her perception may be very different; and if there was an independent observer, it may be theirs too.

So what, you may ask. If you are to come out the other side, where ever that may be, you have to come to terms of what was going on, or not going on in the marriage, and you have to come to terms with what part you have had in the dissolution.

You say that she is not talking with you; that all too often is a sign that she feels there is no longer any point; and that is a sign of what you may have done or failed to do in terms of communication.

You say you cannot stop her, and technically with no-fault divorce you are right. But this is not an issue about stopping her (you seem convinced you can try in the tribunal; an interesting observation); it is about healing.

I cannot make any promises about ever getting her back. But if that were ever to occur, it most likely would not until you came to terms with what part you had in the failure. And more importantly than getting her back is getting yourself healed. You may not be able to live with her any more; but you sure as shooting are going to have to live with yourself for the rest of your life.

You have two choices: blame her, or figure out what you did or didn’t do that worked to cause this failure. You can spend all your time trying to defeat her in a tribunal, and appealing it to Rome if possible; and that will just about guarantee you don’t look inside yourself.

In short, you need to get to a licensed clinical psychologist and get some marriage counseling. Without her. There is nothing wrong in telling her you are doing this, but you need to do it for yourself; not as a game to get her to come. Later, if she does, she does, and if not, well, she doesn’t.

(continued next post)

 

[otjm]

So why am I saying this?

You seem to have no clue as to what part you played in this.

You seem determined that you are going to fight at the tribunal level, in part ( I think) because you have acknowledged you cannot fight it at the divorce court level.

So what?

If she gets a divorce, which she will if she persues it, you cannot stop her.

What difference will it make to you whether or not she applies to the tribunal and gets a decree of nullity? What will have changed?

If she gets a decree of nullity, you can still go around feeling that you are married to her sacramentally, whether the tribunal is right or wrong.

If she gets a nullity decision, you don’t have to marry somone else.

And if she doesn’t get a decree, that is not going to bring her back to you no matter what you think (and I am wondering if that is beneath all of this).

She is divorcing you for a reason, or a host of reasons, and you don’t seem to be aware of them.

I have the feeling that all the focus on defeating a petition for nullity is that somehow she will then have to come back to you, or that somehow she will want to. Why else all the fuss? You have already said in so many words that if she gets one, you are convinced that you have a sacramental marriage, so the decree will be meaningless to you. What else is at play here? Control? Panic at the loss (and that I can certainly understand)? Something else?

Unless and until you figure out your part in this dissolution, you continue to drag the same baggage around. It is time to sort through who you are, and how you ended up in this situation; failing to do that just about guarantees that you will continue to make the same sort of mistakes, and fail in the same places that you have in the marriage. 40 to 50 years is a long time to drag that baggage around, with or without a spouse.

Is it possible that some day the two of you may reconcile? Anything is possible; some things are more probable than others. But unless and until you figure out your part, it is pretty moot. And even after you do, it may be moot; but at least you will have had the opportunity to learn and grow.

Many people do not like to hear what I have to say, in part because I tend to be blunt and say hard things. But the more I read these posts, the less I can understand why the tribunal is an issue with you. I think there is something else afoot; and I would hope this might help you to get to the bottom of it.

 

[THurifer2]

Or, also hypothetically, if you had a spouse who lied to the pope himself, together with a crowd of false witnesses and a ton of forged evidence, and convinced him to dissolve your marriage as unconsummated, that marriage would still hold.

I worded it wrong…If this is appealed in Rota and an annulment is upheld then the OP cannot do anything more and must accept the fact that His spouse is Free for Marriage in the Catholic Church to another individual. Somthing is terribly amiss in this whole thread…how can an individual petition for nullilty if they have not obtained a civil divorce? I know it is possible but people usually go for an anulment when they are planning marry someone. I am having trouble with the OPs information…If his spouse is going far enough to get an annullment then its seems to me (my speculation) that there just almost has to be another person involved here. And if that is the case certainly there has been a civil divorce…and if that is the case then the OP must be having trouble accepting the marriage breakdown…and rightuflly so.

 

[THurifer2]

SO BACK OFF ME!!

I am wondering if were some temper issues in this marriage?

 

[themait]

Not at all-no issues with anger (but I am sure this will lead to another 20 posts about me not knowing anything about my marriage and my juvenile feelings about my wife and my marriage.) It just iritated me about the way one individual has repeatedly attacked my simple statement that in my heart I will honor my wife all the days of my life—because I gave my word to God and her at our wedding…that I would. And when you get called a heretic or are basically called an idiot for having those honorable beliefs and intentions…especially on a religious webpage—it is disappointing.

 

[Ron_Conte]

For a valid marriage, three things are needed:

1. consent
2. consummation (marital relations)
3. proper form (typically a priest using the ceremony for marriage prescribed by the Church)

For two Catholics who marry in their parish, with marriage preparation, with their parish priest marrying them, generally the third criterium is met.

Most cases of annulments center on consent. It is not merely consent to the secular idea of marriage, but to the Sacrament of Marriage. Things that can reduce consent to a sufficient extent as to make the marriage invalid include the lack of an intention to contract the Sacrament of Marriage, substantial psychological impairment, lack of age and maturity, etc.

Now some persons would exaggerate any or all of the above factors, such that the validity of most marriages would be in doubt. But in my view, such factors must very substantially reduce consent in order for the marriage to be invalid. For these factors, if present, affect the validity of anymarriage, not merely of marriages where one or both spouses seek an annulment. The presense of some minor impairment, such as the lack of maturity typically found in a couple marrying in their twenties, would not be sufficient to make a marriage invalid.

As for the events which occur after the marriage begins, these can be evidence of past consent to the Sacrament of Marriage, and so are evidence of its validity (even if they are not the cause of its validity).

For example, attending Mass with your spouse shows that you both intended to contract the Sacrament of Marriage, not merely the secular idea of marriage.

grace and peace to you and to your wife.

 

[themait]

Thank you----and with my original posts…those were the types of responses and explanations of the whole issue of marriage and nullity that I was looking for. I didn’t want arguments or debates over my choice or my wife’s choice-nothing will change those without the hand of God…I just wanted explanations into the process from people that had or were going through it.

SO thank you for the last post—and the prayers.

 

[qui_est_ce]

So why am I saying this?

You seem to have no clue as to what part you played in this.

You seem determined that you are going to fight at the tribunal level, in part ( I think) because you have acknowledged you cannot fight it at the divorce court level.

So what?

If she gets a divorce, which she will if she persues it, you cannot stop her.

What difference will it make to you whether or not she applies to the tribunal and gets a decree of nullity? What will have changed?

I don’t know much about your background, I appreciate your wise and in depth response. I, too, wondered about the motivation, but you were able to put it into better words than I.

 

[THurifer2]

SInce this discussio is on an anulment. If anyone could help me…what would be some reasnons for a person to ask for annulment.

I can only really think of one…otherwise why would someone seek an
annulment?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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

Intending to use ABC only invalidates consent if, by a positive act of the will, one or both parties excluded procreation entirely. Intending to use ABC temporarily, then, indicates a lack of understanding of marriage, but is not the exclusion of an essential component that would rise to the level of an invalidating factor. I suppose a tribunal might consider this misunderstanding in conjunction with other factors, but it is not in and of itself an invalidating issue.

The matter of “knowing in one’s heart” that contraception was best, however, does lead into a different discussion…

If you believe the teachings of the church on Marriage then you WILL accept the tribunals ruling if it comes to an annulment.

Yes. You may feel, with all the emotions at your disposal and some you didn’t know that you had, that your marriage was valid.

But the difficult part is separating out your feelings, which are emotions, from facts.

I think both those posts address the issue from different sides. Thurifer’s is a bit extreme, since one can have legitimate grounds (like knowing there was falsified evidence) for privately disagreeing with the tribunal, but it raises the issue of whether the heart is capable of deciding the question for us. If I “know in my heart” that I am married, I am really only expressing a feeling. Tribunals, on the other hand, are trying to ascertain facts, and the judges who sit on them are far more competent to assess how the facts submitted to them impact validity than we are. I think this is where otjm has headed with his postings.

The long and short of things is that, since the OP isn’t a canonist, it would be very wise to let the judgment of the tribunal override the feeling in his heart, and that because of a very particular piece of evidence - he has already shown that his heart guided him in a completely wrong direction regarding birth control. He knew in his heart that birth control was the right thing for his family, which means that the Church says with all her teaching authority that his heart was 100% wrong.

Friendly advice, then, for the OP - and please read this as coming from someone who has already defended you on this thread - if you want to be faithful to the Church, recognize that if you were wrong once you could be wrong again. Let those who know the issue better explain the facts laid out in the case and how and why the tribunal comes to a decision. Let those facts and the expert opinions surrounding them inform you on the issue, not your even more fallible heart. Perhaps your heart is informed by many facts, which I think it truly is. You’re looking at what you experienced leading up to your wedding and are working off what you consider to be the real conditions at that time. But if it turns out that there were more facts you didn’t know about or that you misunderstood some other facts, invite your heart to render a new judgment based on new knowledge.

 

[DebChris]

What has not been mentioned on this thread is Retrouville, an offshoot of Marriage Encounter. While Marriage Encounter was established to make strong marriages stronger, Retrouville was established to help marriages that are troubled. Even divorced couples can attend Retrouville. Marriages that have desolved because of acoholism and drug abuse have been saved through the process of learning new communication techniques.
When a person has a heart attack, every effort is made to help the person survive. Once the person has survived, he/she is taught new ways of living to help prevent future heart attacks. Unfortunately this same scenario is not true for troubled families. Instead of helping the couple retrieve what has been lost, individuals “help” the couple separate and seldom give them any sense of hope that the relationship can be restored. I once read that 80% of divorces in this country are uncontested. Sometimes in order to know that the other spouse cares, he/she must show up in court to make his/her case.
When it comes to annullments, there is a waiting game involved. The person who does not want the annullment needs to wait for the paperwork from the individual who started the process. This process can take from nine to twelve months depending on the diocese. Once the papers have been received, an advocate for the marriage can be appointed. This is information I learned from a former pastor.
Artificial birth control is a sin that can be confessed. I do not know whether or not it is sufficient grounds for an annullment. I am not a canon lawyer. More than a short term non-compliance with Church law would need to be considered.

 

[WICatholic]

I’m sorry, but your post really makes me mad. Are you a control freak? Are you going to tell the Church what she should do? Please do not belittle the CC for “successful” annulments.

This was, IMHO, uncalled for.