Tips on fighting an annulment

[Restore]

Like you I looked for a Catholic website and ministry within our diocese that would help me to stand for my marriage. I found none. I checked Retrovaille, but if there’s a third party involved, it was recommended that it won’t help. I understood that perfectly and accepted it. Previous to these efforts, my husband and I had gone separately to seek counsel from our parish priest who told me that if or when I would seek divorce he would support me. I was utterly disappointed ! Perhaps I was naive, but I fully expected him to help my husband and I out to restore our marriage and not encourage divorce. I felt so alone. Thanks to friends, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, I learned to seek God through prayer, the Holy Bible, the rosary, Mass, St Therese, St. Joseph, our Blessed Mother and yes, Rejoice Ministries.

 Rejoice Minstries, run by a couple who have gone through a marriage breakdown, divorce and remarriage to each other are Protestants but the website itself is non-denominational.  Like you said, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ.  Their message is that there is an alternative to divorce. Their love, faith and trust in God through our Lord Jesus Christ has helped me tremendously in my stand for my marriage.  Through this minstry, I have become more attentive during Mass when the Gospel is being read, as well as, the 2 readings and the homily instead of zoning out.  I learned how to read and love the Bible ( the Catholic New American Bible) instead of using it as a history resource. I learned how to pray to God to enable me to give my husband my unconditional love instead of wanting to hurt or punish him.  I have learned that I need to forgive my husband everyday and for me to seek forgiveness in my role in the breakdown of our marriage.  As a result, there is no hatred and bitterness between my husband and myself.  All these took time but I thank God for this opportunity to know more about Him.  

   Do I believe that He will restore my marriage? Absolutely! When? In His perfect timing.  Even though the wait is excruciating, just like St. Paul said, God is never late and does not delay.

 

[THurifer2]

 Rejoice Minstries, run by a couple who have gone through a marriage breakdown, divorce and remarriage to each other are Protestants but the website itself is non-denominational.  Like you said, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ.  Their message is that there is an alternative to divorce. Their love, faith and trust in God through our Lord Jesus Christ has helped me tremendously in my stand for my marriage.  .

Rejoice Ministries may not be safe to use for Catholics who are not familiar with their own faith.

In a walk of faith I believe using a organization that doesnt have a similar understanding of Sacramental Marriage and is an adherant to the anti-Catholic stance of Sola Scriptura is NOT a good idea.
I have a sibling who participated in a similar “healing” ministry and ended up leaving the baruqe of peter to become an extremely anti-Catholic individual.

Using such a “ministry” is playing with fire…
At what expense would one be willing to repair their marriage.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

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.

Just to point out, most of the time of the initial decision is spent collecting the “proofs” and preparing the case for and against. Provided proper care was taken in the first instance, a subsequent review would be a straightforward reading by the judges of the second instance and agreeing or disagreeing with the decision made at the first consideration of the case. It is not a retrial, but a review…

 

[Ray_Scheel]

OP: As far as resources on approaching a nullity case from the proper canonical viewpoint, the following is the best collection of resources I have found on the web. I used it extensively when preparing my nullity petition to assure myself that I was building up a strong and valid case (though I had plenty to work with):
marysadvocates.org/annulment/annulment.html

Actually I was not asking that…I was more or less making a Rhetorical question…to me if I got a letter from a church and found out that my wife was seeking an annulment…I would conclude (may not be right) that she wanted to marry someone.

If it was close on the heels of finalizing the divorce and initiated by the party refusing to work on reconciliation, I’d suspect the same thing.

OTOH, When I filed for nullity, I was nowhere close to even wanting to date again, but was rather wanting to put the question to the tribunal regarding a bizarre framework that my ex-wife insisted were our respective responsibilities to one another in light of our vows. My case was filed last December, about 4 months after the civil divorce was finalized and a few weeks after my ex canceled further joint work with a psychologist that she asked me to come to her with just a week before the final hearing (right after the psychologist ruled out her use of her personal therapy as an after the fact veto on her part of assigned joint work). Based on feedback from others who have been through the process locally, it takes about a year, so I’m hoping for an initial decision soon.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

You are correct. It isn’t.

Do you know of a HEALING Catholic site that will stand with the one who wants to save the Marriage? If so, please tell us, and perhaps there will never need to be a petition to start the Decreee of Nullity Process.

1.) Yes. It’s called retrouvaille.org/. Several people have recommended it. It is definitely for people who want to save a marriage. I have never heard it said that Retrouvaille is not effective when a third party is involved- quote the contrary.

Neither the site you offered, nor Retrouvaille, can work if one of the parts of the couple does not want to go. Your Protestant and very evangelcial site, Retrouvaille- It doesn’t matter if the other party will not participate. It sounds to me to be extremely unrealistic to expect God to “heal” a marriage that was never a marriage from the start. That can only be determined by the competent authority of **the **Church.

2.) Unfortunately, we are human. There will always be a need for the petition start the nullity process. That is why the Church so wisely offers it.

Rejoice Ministries may have helped you, but that does not mean they are loyal to the Church or accept Her beliefs as Truth. Further, studying scripture through non-Catholic sources can cause misinterpretation of scripture.

I am not against protestants as whole. You will recall my first post in this thread.

I am sorry for the loss of your marriage.

 

[WICatholic]

1.) Yes. It’s called retrouvaille.org/. Several people have recommended it. It is definitely for people who want to save a marriage. I have never heard it said that Retrouvaille is not effective when a third party is involved- quote the contrary.

Neither the site you offered, nor Retrouvaille, can work if one of the parts of the couple does not want to go. Your Protestant and very evangelcial site, Retrouvaille- It doesn’t matter if the other party will not participate. It sounds to me to be extremely unrealistic to expect God to “heal” a marriage that was never a marriage from the start. That can only be determined by the competent authority of **the **Church.

You have missed the point. Retrouvaille is there to help UNTIL the divorce goes through. After that, there is no help.

Pope JPII has words that few in our Church heed and fewer still are even aware of!

But it is also proper to recognize the value of the witness of those spouses who, even when abandoned by their partner, with the strength of faith and of Christian hope have not entered a new union: These spouses too give an authentic witness to fidelity, of which the world today has a great need. For this reason they must be encouraged and helped by the pastors and the faithful of the church.
~~FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO Pope John Paul II 12/15/1981 (Sec 20)

These are the very ones that we are referring to when we say that there is no support. These are the very ones who need to have help. Thus far, I have read/heard of only one group, in Italy, and one who partially helps in that way here in the US.

2.) Unfortunately, we are human. There will always be a need for the petition start the nullity process. That is why the Church so wisely offers it.

As for the statement that you made above, there are many of us who cannot use this system the way it is set up. The petition to start the procedure most often requires belief that our Marriage WAS Null, and those of us who do not believe this to be true are unable to sign anything stating that fact.

The very fact that we are refered to as ‘former spouses’ also indicates very clearly that there is a bias toward accepting that God HAS put us assunder by virtue of man’s civil divorce. That is clearly in conflict with Church teaching. Our spouse IS our spouse til death parts us regardless of what mankind may say to the contrary, according to Church teaching.

Divorce does not end Marriage. Note I did NOT add the very popular word ‘valid’. Why? Because UNTIL a marriage has truly been proven to be Null, it is Valid. The presumption by many is that if a marriage has made it to Divorce Court, something was wrong in the first place. That is a false statement in today’s no fault forced, unilateral divorce courts where the minute the papers are served, it is PRESUMED that divorce will take place unless the petitioner stops the process. Judges do not ‘grant’ divorce based on facts. It is a given the minute he steps into a court room. His hands are tied there. The ONLY things he has jurisdiction over is the division of marital property and children.

Further, as Archbishop Sheen taught, there are three in Sacramental Marriages. Sacramental Marriage is between any two Baptized persons, not just in the Catholic Church.

With God all things are possible, and He hates Divorce. He doesn’t change, and He doesn’t break Covenant. Marriage is til Death, and our own Church teaches this fact. Valid marriages ARE ending up in man’s Civil Divorce Courts, and then ending up in our US Tribunals.

Rejoice Ministries may have helped you, but that does not mean they are loyal to the Church or accept Her beliefs as Truth. Further, studying scripture through non-Catholic sources can cause misinterpretation of scripture.

I am not against protestants as whole. You will recall my first post in this thread.

I am sorry for the loss of your marriage.

Until there is something IN the Church to aid and support the one who honors Vows til death regardless of what ‘Man’ says, and offers support in prayer and teaching of how to love the other unconditionally, how to choose to forgive what many see as the unforgivable, how to draw back the one who has strayed, there is no alternative for many.

As much good as Retrouvaille has given to many, it is not what is needed by a great many people who ARE honoring their Vows til Death parts them from their spouses.
Covenant Keepers and Rejoice Ministries as well as others stand with the ONE spouse, support that ONE spouse. Most others call us ‘delusional’.

 

[WICatholic]

Rejoice Ministries may not be safe to use for Catholics who are not familiar with their own faith.

In a walk of faith I believe using a organization that doesnt have a similar understanding of Sacramental Marriage and is an adherant to the anti-Catholic stance of Sola Scriptura is NOT a good idea.
I have a sibling who participated in a similar “healing” ministry and ended up leaving the baruqe of peter to become an extremely anti-Catholic individual.

Using such a “ministry” is playing with fire…
At what expense would one be willing to repair their marriage.

Until the US Catholic Church gives us a safe haven to recognize the very valid Sacramental marriages of many of us who have been abandoned/deserted to no fault divorce, there is no place else to go. As for having a similar understanding of Sacramental Marriage… I find few places that have a MORE Catholic understanding than those that stand with a deserted spouse instead of telling them that ‘this is God’s Will’ when the divorce is granted in Civil Court… and ‘now, get on with your life’ when the US Tribunals decree NULL based on questionable ‘grounds’.

Again, is there a Catholic based group that supports US? Not Beginning Experience, surely.

By the way, “Sacramental Marriage” is between two Baptized people. Those Baptized in the proper Form. It is why ALL marriages are to be examined before any second marriage can be considered Valid. The Church recognizes Baptism from many non-Catholic churches, just as she recognizes the validity of many of those marriages.

 

[otjm]

Until the US Catholic Church gives us a safe haven to recognize the very valid Sacramental marriages of many of us who have been abandoned/deserted to no fault divorce, there is no place else to go. As for having a similar understanding of Sacramental Marriage… I find few places that have a MORE Catholic understanding than those that stand with a deserted spouse instead of telling them that ‘this is God’s Will’ when the divorce is granted in Civil Court… and ‘now, get on with your life’ when the US Tribunals decree NULL based on questionable ‘grounds’.

While I am not naive enough to think that there are no cases from a tribunal which may be questionable, a good part of the problem consists of the fact that many people have a very limited understanding of the issues of impediment to consent. Coupled with that is the fact that the abandoned spouse is having to deal with one of the most emotionally damaging traumas anyone faces. Because of that trauma, they are often not well equiped in terms of dealing with the second round, as they perceive it, of a tribunal saying that there was no sacrament. and you are right that many others, trying to be helpful, or simply not having the patience and understanding to deal with the pain, seem to pass over the issue very lightly.

Again, is there a Catholic based group that supports US? Not Beginning Experience, surely.

Is it possible that such a group might be more problematic than having no group at all? How does one regulate “membership” to avoid those who are “trolling” for another spouse, or perhaps not trolling, but so emotionally vulnerable that they form attachments that, if they or others in the group wish to reamin unmarried, are problematic at best?

I do not mean to make light of it, but what exactly are you looking for in a group? And how do you answer the issues above?

 

[otjm]

You have missed the point. Retrouvaille is there to help UNTIL the divorce goes through. After that, there is no help.

I disagree with you; although Retrouvaille is oriented to troubled marriages, I have my doubts that a divorced couple who sought to put their marriage back together could not avail themselves of a weekend. And further, there is always help through groups such as a Catholic Counciling Center or related group, and good marriage counselors.

. The petition to start the procedure most often requires belief that our Marriage WAS Null, and those of us who do not believe this to be true are unable to sign anything stating that fact. I don’t think the system requires any such belief; it requires the willingness to submit one’s marriage to review. One also needs to distinguish what one believes, from the possiblity that one’s belief is based on mistaken understanding of the facts, or no understanding, or the same for the results of a set of facts. Some people insist that black is white, because they have an emotional need for it to be so. For them, black is white; but that does not mean that in reality black is white.

The very fact that we are refered to as ‘former spouses’ also indicates very clearly that there is a bias toward accepting that God HAS put us assunder by virtue of man’s civil divorce.

On the other hand, the world - the State, the IRS, and a whole lot of people understand that if the State declares a divorce, you may not be free to remarry, but you most definitely have a former spouse.

Divorce does not end Marriage. Note I did NOT add the very popular word ‘valid’. Why? Because UNTIL a marriage has truly been proven to be Null, it is Valid. it is PRESUMED that divorce will take place unless the petitioner stops the process. Judges do not ‘grant’ divorce based on facts. It is a given the minute he steps into a court room. His hands are tied there. The ONLY things he has jurisdiction over is the division of marital property and children.

How true. Putting on the respondent in a divorce case to testify as to why the divorce should not be granted is bound to bring about a lively exchange, mostly one-sided, with the judge.

With God all things are possible, and He hates Divorce. He doesn’t change, and He doesn’t break Covenant. Marriage is til Death, and our own Church teaches this fact. Valid marriages ARE ending up in man’s Civil Divorce Courts, and then ending up in our US Tribunals.

Again, given that it is very very rare that anyone else has full access to the information presented to the tribunal, it is only through anecdotal information that anyone not a party to a specific case can come to the conclusion that valid marriages are being judged null. And the anecdotal information is subject to the potential that the provider has an emotional investment in a different outcome, causing a bias that cannot be dealt with except through access to all the facts of the case, which are rarely ever provided.

Until there is something IN the Church to aid and support the one who honors Vows til death regardless of what ‘Man’ says, and offers support in prayer and teaching of how to love the other unconditionally, how to choose to forgive what many see as the unforgivable, how to draw back the one who has strayed, there is no alternative for many.

Any group, unless it was limited to a single sex, would be problematic in that it could be difficult to determine membership - how does one exclude those “trolling” for a realtionship and possible marriage, and how does one protect those who are emotionally so vulnerable that they will likely be “falling in love”?

And why, particularly is it necessary to set up a group for those who choose to remain celibate?

Covenant Keepers and Rejoice Ministries as well as others stand with the ONE spouse, support that ONE spouse. Most others call us ‘delusional’.

I have never heard anyone say anything about those who go through a divorce and do not seek remarriage “delusional”. I do agree that some people find it hard to understand how anyone would remain single. Given that there are an estimated 8,000,000 divorced Catholics, a large number who simple remarried without ever going through a tribunal proceeding, and the impression that everyone who seeks a decree of nullity is given one and that everyone gets one (never mid the reality), some of that may be understandable. After several generations of people living in a no-fault divorce world, some of that may be understandable. Wrong, I agree. But being called “delusional”? Perhaps there is more to the story than what we are hearing.

 

[WICatholic]

Is it possible that such a group might be more problematic than having no group at all? How does one regulate “membership” to avoid those who are “trolling” for another spouse, or perhaps not trolling, but so emotionally vulnerable that they form attachments that, if they or others in the group wish to reamin unmarried, are problematic at best?

I do not mean to make light of it, but what exactly are you looking for in a group? And how do you answer the issues above?

Do you think that this isn’t exactly what happens in many divorced and separated groups? Or Parents Without Partner type groups? Beginning Experience grouips?

‘Trolls’ rarely join a Stander’s group. Dating when one is honoring their wedding vows is NOT something that anyone is interested in doing.

Regulate membership? Why? To be a ‘member’, all one has to do is understand that marriage is just as we promised, til death of one of us.

More problems for whom? For faithful spouses who are learning to love unconditionally, forgive, grow closer to God? Attempting to grow in obedience and holiness, knowing that we fail, get up and start again?

Praying for our spouses to return to Him, and then home? Praying them home may not be appreciated. Praying for marital restoration may cause ‘problems’ for the other spouse, but that isn’t the intention.

Those that are standing for their marriages are not looking for ‘another’. They are looking for someone to affirm them in living what they promised to God and to their spouse.

We are not choosing to ‘remain unmarried’. In the eyes of God and our Church, we ARE married, in spite of what Civil Court says.

Remember–ALL marriages are presumed ‘VALID’ until proven Null, not the other way around.

Someone interested in ‘dating’ would before long lose interest in a group of people learning where they have failed, and praying for their spouses. There are too many other places where they could find someone to date much more quickly than in a group of Standers.

A very good example of someone who Stood for her marriage after civil divorce is Catherine of Aragon. She wrote a letter to her HUSBAND and called herself the Queen right up to the time of her death, in spite of Henry VIII’s having divorced her and ‘married’ Anne Boleyn.

This is not a ‘new’ concept.
‘In this world I will confess myself to be the king’s true wife, and in the next they will know how unreasonably I am afflicted.’
Katharine of Aragon, 1532 *

 

[WICatholic]

I disagree with you; although Retrouvaille is oriented to troubled marriages, And further, there is always help through groups such as a Catholic Counciling Center or related group, and good marriage counselors.

**I don’t think the system requires any such belief; it requires the willingness to submit one’s marriage to review. **

Ah, yes… there is always a need to second guess, or find something ‘more’.

Going back to the top:

You are assuming that TWO want to save the marriage in your response about Retrouvaille. Good Catholic counseling, etc ends when Divorce takes place … then the encouragement to ‘get on with your life’ and ‘heal’ by petitioning the Tribunals begins.

The forms to Petition for Nullity do not just say… “please reassure me and tell me my marriage is valid…but I could be mistaken”. On the contrary, they ask for grounds, and one is Petitioning FOR Nullity. If we do not believe our marriage is NULL, how can we come up with any ‘grounds’, and why would we ask for a NULL verdict?
As an example:
"PART 1: COMPETENCY and OATH
**"By means of this document, I,do hereby petition **the Office of the Tribunal of the Dio Galv-Houston to declare null the marriage I entered into with my former spouse, (known as the Respondent), on the grounds of a defect of consent."
**SNIP **
"I solemnly swear that I am presenting this petition in good faith and the statements herein are the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of my knowledge, so help me God.

Some people simply believe the Church:
***The Church teaches that marriage, by its very nature, is permanent and indissoluble. Moreover, the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage (i.e., marriage between baptized persons) obtains a special firmness by virtue of the sacrament. Once consummated (i.e., after the spouses have had conjugal relations), a valid, sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power.

Furthermore, spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them. Only diocesan authority can grant permission for spouses to separate permanently or file for divorce in civil court.***

Your response about a respondent in court shows that you do not understand that there is no due process to defend the marriage or themselves in divorce court. Perhaps it was said tongue-in-cheek? Perhaps not.
It isn’t ‘remaining celibate’. It IS honoring one’s Vows. We are not ‘single’ as defined by today’s standards. And I remind you that ALL marriages are presumed Valid until proven to be Null.

Study Catherine of Aragon.

As for the US Tribunals… As part of the Church that has always taught that Divorce does not end Marriage, it is at least there that we should be able to be recognized as SPOUSE until the verdict of Null is handed down. That IS the teaching of the Church.

I have already answered the question about support groups.

As for the ‘Delusional’ aspect, it isn’t simply using ‘that word’, but inferring that we, who do uphold our Vows and do not recognize man’s Divorce may fit this category:

“One also needs to distinguish what one believes, from the possiblity that one’s belief is based on mistaken understanding of the facts, etc.”

A psychiatrist I worked for defined a delusion as a fixed false idea. Your statement that there IS a ‘former spouse’ in secular society could be taken as a form of saying that one who upholds their Vows after Man tries to end them, in spite of what the Church teaches, could easily be misconstrued as another way of saying… delusional.

Believe me, we know what Man says. I refer you again to what the Church says.

 

[DebChris]

For those of us who believe in the sanctity of marriage, and that the Catholic Church teaches the indissolubility of marriage, divorce can be very confusing.
On a retreat I learned that the Catholic Church views divorce merely as a division of property. The marriage remains valid until proven otherwise.
A person may leave the Catholic Church yet he remains a Catholic until death because of his Baptism. The same holds true for marriage. I may live alone. Legally I may be single yet by the standards of the Church I remain married. The Sacrament remains vaild regardless of how many years my husband remains away. He may never return. That is not my concern. My only concern is remaining faithful regardless of the decisions he makes. The removal of my ring meant freeing him from the vows he made and I would expect a renewal of our promises before living once again as husband and wife.
When I was going through this most difficult period of my life, I made an Easter retreat. I was given the book of Hosea to read. Others on this thread might also find it helpful.
God did use my heartbreak to bind me closer to himself. “Like a woman married in youth and then cast out, the Lord your maker shall become your husband.”

 

[otjm]

Do you think that this isn’t exactly what happens in many divorced and separated groups? Or Parents Without Partner type groups? Beginning Experience grouips?

‘Trolls’ rarely join a Stander’s group. Dating when one is honoring their wedding vows is NOT something that anyone is interested in doing.

Regulate membership? Why? To be a ‘member’, all one has to do is understand that marriage is just as we promised, til death of one of us.

More problems for whom? For faithful spouses who are learning to love unconditionally, forgive, grow closer to God? Attempting to grow in obedience and holiness, knowing that we fail, get up and start again?

Praying for our spouses to return to Him, and then home? Praying them home may not be appreciated. Praying for marital restoration may cause ‘problems’ for the other spouse, but that isn’t the intention.

Those that are standing for their marriages are not looking for ‘another’. They are looking for someone to affirm them in living what they promised to God and to their spouse.

We are not choosing to ‘remain unmarried’. In the eyes of God and our Church, we ARE married, in spite of what Civil Court says.

Remember–ALL marriages are presumed ‘VALID’ until proven Null, not the other way around.

Someone interested in ‘dating’ would before long lose interest in a group of people learning where they have failed, and praying for their spouses. There are too many other places where they could find someone to date much more quickly than in a group of Standers.

A very good example of someone who Stood for her marriage after civil divorce is Catherine of Aragon. She wrote a letter to her HUSBAND and called herself the Queen right up to the time of her death, in spite of Henry VIII’s having divorced her and ‘married’ Anne Boleyn.

This is not a ‘new’ concept.
‘In this world I will confess myself to be the king’s true wife, and in the next they will know how unreasonably I am afflicted.’
Katharine of Aragon, 1532 *

So, maybe I am being dense, and I don’t mean to be. But if one needs counseling, one goes to a counselor. I am not big on group counseling, but I definitely supprot individual counseling.

As to any of the rest of it, I fail to see that one needs a group. I am still not clear what you expect a group to do or provide, or why there is need for one. I do understand the need for counseling at times. But I don’t see what the Church needs to provide that it is not providing now.

I know that some parishes have AA groups, or a modification along Catholic lines of AA; but I hardly see being divorced as needing a group to meet with each week.

Again, I am not trying to be dense or “cute” about it; what is it you feel the Church is failing to provide?

 

[Blueberry_Juice]

I echo some of the earliest comments on this thread about the necessity of Themait engaging a canon lawyer with immediate effect in order to safeguard his rights.
I don’t know whether these people are any good but they look as though they are worth a try:
st-joseph-foundation.org/
The foundation says it is committed to serving Catholics on the basis of need not ability to pay.

If I may say, this thread has been disfigured by some of the most disgraceful comments I have ever seen on an internet forum, either secular or religious. That these comments have been directed against someone who merely enquired how he may best defend his rights, in a matter as superlatively sensitive as marriage desertion, on a Catholic forum, where he should reasonably expect support for his position, is appalling. The individual who attacked Themait expressed sentiments which were thoroughly disgusting and entirely contrary to Christianity, justifying their vituperation on the basis of a spurious feminism. The individual who expressed such unChristian sentiments then had the brass neck to label Themait a Protestant. That individual should apologise to Themait forthwith.

Others have indulged in insensitive, irrelevant, frankly impudent speculations about Themait’s marriage, one actually saying: “You seem to have no clue as to what part you played in this.”
The inappropriateness of such a remark is truly staggering. Again, I think Themait is owed an apology.

There has been considerable disquiet about the absurdly, unjustifiably large number of annulments granted in the US for some time now, concerns which reached as high as His late holiness, John Paul II. These concerns are that far too many annulments are granted far too lightly to a population soaked in moral relativism and individualism. Given some of the comments on this thread, such concerns are not without foundation.

To Themait I offer my sincere sympathy at the shoddy treatment he has suffered at the hands of his wife and the unChristian sentiments he has encountered here of all places. It really shouldn’t have happened.

Themait’s attitude to his wife is creditable to the point of heroic. He must not be ashamed to defend his legitimate rights and he must remember that he always has the option of appealing to Rome.

 

[otjm]

The forms to Petition for Nullity do not just say… “please reassure me and tell me my marriage is valid…but I could be mistaken”. … If we do not believe our marriage is NULL, how can we come up with any ‘grounds’, and why would we ask for a NULL verdict?

Anyone who wants a finding by the tribunal, assuming the other party is not filing, could file with a straight face and use the process to their advantage. The tribunal could (and does) find that some marriages are valid. It may well be that no advocate would take the case; at which point, unless the other party petitions, the issue is moot unless one wishes to self represent.

"I solemnly swear that I am presenting this petition in good faith and the statements herein are the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of my knowledge, so help me God.

One might want to choose something other than the grounds of defective consent under which to apply. In any event, if that is the only means of petitioning, then one has to use the means available to bring the case to a decision. The oath is that you have answered honestly, not that you believe that the marriage is sacramentally null.

Some people simply believe the Church:
The Church teaches that marriage, by its very nature, is permanent and indissoluble.

Neither the belief in the sacrmentality of the marriage nor the belief that the Chair is vacant make it so. Again, I do not presume that there has never been a bad decision from a tribunal. But when 1/2 of 1 percent of Catholics who are divorced get a decree of nullity, neither do I believe that vast numbers of them are wrong decisions. Further, many people do not know the issues that can legitimately prevent consent; and many people are emotionally invested in maintaining that they are still married when an unbiased outside observer could legitimately decide otherwise. I am simply trying to take a factual approach. Nor do I think that out of the 99.5% of the people who have not had a decision, there are no legitimate sacramental marriages that have gone through a civil divorce.

Your response about a respondent in court shows that you do not understand that there is no due process to defend the marriage or themselves in divorce court. Perhaps it was said tongue-in-cheek? Perhaps not.

Given that I practiced law for 12 years, my response was based on facts. I had a judge chew me out.

It isn’t ‘remaining celibate’. It IS honoring one’s Vows.

I should have used chaste, perhaps as a better choice of words. It is not celibacy as normally understood, but it is celibacy in action.

As for the US Tribunals… As part of the Church that has always taught that Divorce does not end Marriage, it is at least there that we should be able to be recognized as SPOUSE until the verdict of Null is handed down. That IS the teaching of the Church.

Nothing I have ever said contradicts this.

As for the ‘Delusional’ aspect, it isn’t simply using ‘that word’, but inferring that we, who do uphold our Vows and do not recognize man’s Divorce may fit this category:

“One also needs to distinguish what one believes, from the possiblity that one’s belief is based on mistaken understanding of the facts, etc.”

I am well aware of what the Church says. I am well aware of the issues of divorce, and of decrees of nullity.

If I have given the impression that I think all divorces should be given a decree of nullity, then it is only because you are reading into what I have said.

There is a difference between beliefs and facts; at times the two are aligned, and at times the two are at odds. Divorce is tremendously damaging emotionally to some people, and out of that group there are some who, if the Pope himself said the marriage was null sacramentally, would not believe it.

If one party seeks a decree of nullity and gets it, the other party may have facts which establish that the decree was wrong; they may believe the decree was wrong and an indpendent observer would agree; they may believe it was wrong and an independent observer would disagree. I tend to believe those who are dispassionate about it because they appear to have no need to disagree; and I tend to thing that those who are most passionate about it are much more likely to need emotionally to disagree wtih the tribunal; in all of the cases I know that I generally do not have enough facts to make a determination. On several occasions, however, having observed the facts, I have found that they (the one opposing the decision) have an emotional need to oppose the finding.

But in no circumstances do I say to them they are wrong.

 

[otjm]

Others have indulged in insensitive, irrelevant, frankly impudent speculations about Themait’s marriage, one actually saying: “You seem to have no clue as to what part you played in this.”
The inappropriateness of such a remark is truly staggering. Again, I think Themait is owed an apology.

Only if you have never been involved in divorce work. I have; and the number of people who find that the problems in the marriage are always the other person’s fault are staggering; in addition, I have had many talks with marriage counselors, who echo the same: the hardest part of counseling is getting the aggreived party to determine what actually happened and what part they played in it.

There are some marriages in which a spouse is truly blindsided and the are very very infrequent. The largest cause of divorce is failure to communicate, and it is a rare circumstance where one party is making every effort to try to od so and meeting a “brick wall”; most often, there were disputes and neither side knew how to handle them constructively; it then degenerated into “wroned” silence, they drifted apart… the scenario repeats itself ad nauseum. Add to that the comments about the OP having no idea what the wife is thinking - as she has shut down communications - sorry, there are too many tell-tails to believe that he had no part in the disintegration of this relationship. I don’t come here to beat people up, but to get them to look at things from a different perspective; they would not be here if they could do so already.

There has been considerable disquiet about the absurdly, unjustifiably large number of annulments granted in the US for some time now, concerns which reached as high as His late holiness, John Paul II. These concerns are that far too many annulments are granted far too lightly to a population soaked in moral relativism and individualism. Given some of the comments on this thread, such concerns are not without foundation.

Let’s get real here. There are approximately 8,000,000 divorced Catholics. That’s eight million. In the year of the largest number of deccrees of nullity, there were about 60,000 granted. A portion of those don’t require anything but simple facts - they are the form cases where the Catholic does not get married in front of a priest. Take those out, and then take out the cases that were Protestants who married, divorced, and then either want to, or already have married a Catholic and are trying to resolve the former marriage. Those are not Catholics, those are Protestants, many of whom were never taught about the permanancy opf marriage. Guess what - intent for permanancy is a major issue. Then remove those who were so poorly catechized as a Catholic that they never had a clue; and go down the list of very real impediments to intent, and you are not left with too many cases. Out of 8,000,000 Catholics.

Themait’s attitude to his wife is creditable to the point of heroic. He must not be ashamed to defend his legitimate rights and he must remember that he always has the option of appealing to Rome.

Facatully we can’t say if he is heroic or not. Having seen all too many cases where there is no heroism at all, I don’t rush to judgement. If he has legitimate information to bring to the tribunal, then by all means he should do so. His choice to intentionally violate the dicatates of the church re: ABC is not in and of itself evidence that either of them either lacked the ability to consent or diagreed with other Church teachings, but it certainly raises an issue that may indicate that they take at least some Church teachings lightly, to put it politely. Whether he or she had the same attitude towards indissolubility may well be an issue the tribunal will look into.

 

[Blueberry_Juice]

“Divorce is tremendously damaging emotionally to some people …”

That rather understates the mental health implications and life outcomes of divorcees and particularly their children, which can reasonably be described as catastrophic for the overwhelming majority of children and a significant number of spouses, especially those divorced against their will.

Children from divorced families are far more likely to underperform at school, engage in criminal behaviour, marry young and then divorce themselves.

According to at least one influential peer reviewed study, divorce is worse for children than bereavement.

According to UK estimates, some 40% of divorced fathers lose contact with their children within two years of a divorce.

Divorce is also a key factor in poverty and in the UK, a factor in the increase in property prices.

Divorce is bad. Bad for society, bad and grotesquely unjust for abandoned spouses and appallingly bad for children. This cannot be stated often enough. Accordingly, it would be both reasonable and desirable for governments to make divorce far more difficult.

 

[WICatholic]

So, maybe I am being dense, and I don’t mean to be. But if one needs counseling, one goes to a counselor. I am not big on group counseling, but I definitely supprot individual counseling.

As to any of the rest of it, I fail to see that one needs a group. I am still not clear what you expect a group to do or provide, or why there is need for one. I do understand the need for counseling at times. But I don’t see what the Church needs to provide that it is not providing now.

I know that some parishes have AA groups, or a modification along Catholic lines of AA; but I hardly see being divorced as needing a group to meet with each week.

Again, I am not trying to be dense or “cute” about it; what is it you feel the Church is failing to provide?

I understand that you are not being ‘cute’ or trying to be dense. I also am not trying to be difficult.

I don’t know how to explain what it is like to be a married person in the eyes of God and the Church, and have others not understand what is essentially Catholic teaching about the indissolubility of Marriage.

Take the example I used about the Petition for Nullity Form. It is clear that those who want to ‘get on with their lives’ and are looking for a way to be able to do that through a second marriage in the Church would have no problem signing the example that I gave you.

What is not clear to many is that a great number of us cannot sign those forms. Yes, in society, we are ‘divorced’, in man’s eyes. But we are not in any different state now, in God’s eyes or the Church’s eyes, regardless of what that civil court said. Yet, when we live this, we are clearly looked upon as being stuck (or worse).

We are pointed to Tribunals to ‘get on with your life’, ‘to heal’, etc.

Should our spouse Petition for Nullity, and we appeal to the Rota as Court of Second Instance, we are often discouraged from doing so with many ‘reasons’ such as it takes too long, ‘they don’t speak English’, it costs too much, and EVEN told that we cannot do this.

The Valid verdicts that have been returned to some of my friends are in the process of being appealed for the second and third times by their spouses. One of them has already had two Valid decisions from the Rota! Yet at no time after those Valid findings were their spouses told that the ‘new relationship’ is adulterous. And at least two of those spouses regularly receive the Eucharist with the ‘blessing’ of their priests, who have told them to use “Internal Forum”.

It isn’t counseling that we need. It is the recognition by our fellow Catholics that we ARE still married (presumably validly) that is lacking. (Including in the Tribunals, remember? Civilly we may be ‘former’ spouses, but until that NULL finding is made, this is not true in the Church).

Refer back to the writer who stated that themait WILL accept a Null verdict. That is not necessarily so. Just as my several friends’ spouses have not accepted the VALID findings, and are appealing again for the second and third times, the Respondent has the same right if there is new evidence. Tribunals are not infallible.

What groups like Covenant Keepers and Rejoice Ministries do is recognize that we are living our Vows as Married until our spouse dies, praying for them, etc, until death parts us even if they never return home. This is 1Cor 7:10-11 (Douay-Rheims):
But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.

We are living Catholic teaching on Sacramental Marriage. We are not ‘choosing’ celibacy. We are honoring our Vows, and our Vocation. We also don’t need to ‘meet’ as in AA, etc.

In today’s divorce rampant mentality, the ‘norm’ is held to be ‘good’ now. Divorce ‘proves’ that a marriage HAD to be Null. People very often date when separated, plan to marry a second partner, etc. (And it is almost universally considered a ‘right’ to have a Null finding).

But that is not Church teaching on Marriage.

Remember that St Thomas More and St John Fisher died because they stood up to the King on this issue and the Headship of the Church. Remember Catherine of Aragon (read her final letter to her Husband, and about her stand for her marriage). She ‘stood’ for her Marriage, she fought for her daughter’s rights. Right up to her death. She never recognized man’s divorce.

This is not ‘new’ thinking. It is Catholic teaching on Matrimony.

 

[WICatholic]

Anyone who wants a finding by the tribunal, assuming the other party is not filing, could file with a straight face and use the process to their advantage.

The example I gave is two sentences that needs to be taken as whole. It states that ‘I’ am petitioning the Tribunal to declare nullity. Without that first section, the final sentence is meaningless. If I signed a contract without reading it, came back and told you, an attorney, that the document said exactly the opposite of what I wanted … would you not tell me ‘then you should not have signed it?’

“By means of this document, I,do hereby petition the Office of the Tribunal of the Dio Galv-Houston **to declare null the marriage I entered into with my former spouse, (**known as the Respondent), on the grounds of a defect of consent.”
SNIP
"I solemnly swear that I am presenting this petition in good faith and the statements herein are the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of my knowledge, so help me God.

One might want to choose something other than the grounds of defective consent under which to apply.

To sign anything ‘with a straight face’ that is worded as above would mean essentially lying. “I” am not petitioning them to declare a marriage ‘NULL’ ; ‘my’ intent would be to have them uphold Validity, which is already presumed. Hence, there would be no ‘grounds’ that one could use to bring the case to them.

Neither the belief in the sacrmentality of the marriage nor the belief that the Chair is vacant make it so. Again, I do not presume that there has never been a bad decision from a tribunal.

Smile… otjm, here you are arguing a statement quoted directly from the Rochester Tribunal website, not a statement of mine.

Some people simply believe the Church: (note the hyperlink)
***The Church teaches that marriage, by its very nature, is permanent and indissoluble. Moreover, the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage (i.e., marriage between baptized persons) obtains a special firmness by virtue of the sacrament. Once consummated (i.e., after the spouses have had conjugal relations), a valid, sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power.

Furthermore, spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them. Only diocesan authority can grant permission for spouses to separate permanently or file for divorce in civil court.*
**

Given that I practiced law for 12 years, my response was based on facts.
I should have used chaste, perhaps as a better choice of words. It is not celibacy as normally understood, but it is celibacy in action.

We are, perhaps, looking at this from opposite perspectives. You from the legal ‘it is done’, me from the other side… it isn’t. ‘Forced divorce’ certainly also entails ‘forced celibacy’, but marital chastity continues because Marriage is presumed Valid, and does not end with Civil Divorce.

There is a difference between beliefs and facts; at times the two are aligned, and at times the two are at odds. Divorce is tremendously damaging emotionally to some people, and out of that group there are some who, if the Pope himself said the marriage was null sacramentally, would not believe it.

I recognize that there are some who would do this. There are many who also will not recognize a Valid finding even from the Pope himself (TODAY, as in the time of Henry VIII). There are many priests, even Spiritual Directors who then tell them that they can use Internal Forum rather than accept the Valid finding.

I tend to believe those who are dispassionate about it because they appear to have no need to disagree; and I tend to thing that those who are most passionate about it are much more likely to need emotionally to disagree wtih the tribunal;
On several occasions, however, having observed the facts, I have found that they (the one opposing the decision) have an emotional need to oppose the finding.
But in no circumstances do I say to them they are wrong.

Remember that several times you have indicated that ‘beliefs’ are not always accurate.

 

[DebChris]

The question has been raised about why a person would seek help from a group. The primary reason is support. It is knowing that you are not alone in your struggles. It is important that a person not choose just any group. It should be led by a trained profession to prevent it from developing into a pity party. When I buy fruit from a farmer, I do not ask whether or not he is Christian, I ask how good his fruit is. When I look for a doctor or counsellor, I do not ask about his/her religious affiliation. I want to know whether or not he/she will help me get better. If Rejoice ministries helps, by all means use them.
A person who stands by his/her marriage can remain faithful and at the same time “get on with his/her life.” Faithfulness does not imply running from reality. Still many people do not recognize that. Non-Catholics may speak about the unequally yoked while quoting St. Paul’s words about being free when the unbelieving spouse leaves the relationship. Catholics, including priests and deacons, will ask why the faithful spouse does not seek an annullment as if it were a cure-all. Seldom does that suggestion come with the caveat not to rush into a new marital relationship. These have been my experiences with those who do not understand the indissolubility of the Matrimonial Sacrament. They overlook God’s commandment to “love one another as I have loved you.” Hosea was called to marry a prostitute in order to learn about the covenantial love God has for his people.
Again, I spoke to a former pastor as to what I needed to do to protect the Sacrament. “Wait.” An annullment cannot be granted without knowledge of the second party involved, unless that party cannot be found. The plaintiff, using the secular term because I have no other, files the petition. His/her diocese sends the information to the other spouse for response. Until then nothing can be done. An advocate for the marriage is assigned if the marriage is to be defended.
I was also told by another priest that sometimes the couple may jointly file and walk through the annullment process together. Some individuals begin the process only to recognize the legitimacy and validity of the marriage bond into which they orginally entered. Regardless of stance, it is important to view the process as healing and not adversarial. Nothing is impossible for God and a marriage can be healed. A broken covenant can be mended.
The information I had on Retrouville is that even couples who have been divorced may participate and have had their relationships restored.