Validity of the nullity

[Otche_Nash]

Hi,
Is anyone else here concerned about the validity of present day annulments? I have been alone for 14 years and am thinking about trying to obtain an annulment. The priest i talked to said it would probably be approved. I understand the church is more lenient than it used to be, although i’ve never tried for an annulment before. My question is this:
Can i confidently stake my immortal soul on the decision of the tribunal? In other words, if they grant an annulment in error, and allow me to re-marry (in the RC church), would i be in mortal sin?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hi,
Is anyone else here concerned about the validity of present day annulments? I have been alone for 14 years and am thinking about trying to obtain an annulment. The priest i talked to said it would probably be approved. I understand the church is more lenient than it used to be, although i’ve never tried for an annulment before. My question is this:
Can i confidently stake my immortal soul on the decision of the tribunal? In other words, if they grant an annulment in error, and allow me to re-marry (in the RC church), would i be in mortal sin?

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The authority of the tribunal is the same authority that the church has through the apostolic authority passed from the apostles.

I am sure speaking to your priest will help you greatly.

Matt 19 tells us when we have a dispute to take it to the church. We are to listen to the church or be treated as a tax collector.

I am pretty sure an annulment falls under this category as well.

 

[bobbyhillisabro]

Hi,
Is anyone else here concerned about the validity of present day annulments? I have been alone for 14 years and am thinking about trying to obtain an annulment. The priest i talked to said it would probably be approved. I understand the church is more lenient than it used to be, although i’ve never tried for an annulment before. My question is this:
Can i confidently stake my immortal soul on the decision of the tribunal? In other words, if they grant an annulment in error, and allow me to re-marry (in the RC church), would i be in mortal sin?

I think this would be answered best in the “Ask an Apologist” section. I have been wondering about this question myself a lot and am eager to see the answers.

 

[quiet52]

A decision by a diocesan Marriage Tribunal is NOT infallible (in fact sometimes – rarely – when an annulment is granted the Respondent can appeal to the Vatican, and – rarely – the decree of nullity can be reversed).

However, whether the Tribunal is in error or not in its finding a marriage was not a valid one, there would be no sin on the part of the former spouses if they remarry.

 

[Neal76]

I read once that the Roman Rota overturns 90% of the diocesan decisions, so it’s hardly rare. It’s rare, however, that cases go as far as the Rota.

If your annulment is incorrect and you remarry, you are objectively committing adultery by having marital relations with someone other than your spouse. This means that even though you are not subjectively choosing to sin, your actions are still sinful. God may not hold you responsible for what you are doing, but He is still offended by your actions.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The authority of the tribunal is the same authority that the church has through the apostolic authority passed from the apostles.

I am sure speaking to your priest will help you greatly.

Matt 19 tells us when we have a dispute to take it to the church. We are to listen to the church or be treated as a tax collector.

I am pretty sure an annulment falls under this category as well.

I just wanted to add here that this does not mean the tribunal is infallible or perfect, but it means she carries the authority given to the church to decide such matters. You would be following the procedure set by the Bible and the church formal so you can have a clear conscience of the issue as long as what you speak to the tribunal is truthful.

 

[1ke]

Is anyone else here concerned about the validity of present day annulments?]

No.

I have been alone for 14 years and am thinking about trying to obtain an annulment. The priest i talked to said it would probably be approved.

Perhaps you shared details with your the priest that make it evident you have a solid case. I am not sure what he based his comment on. You state you are Orthodox in your profile, are you marrying a Catholic or planning to come into full communion with the Church? I am not sure why you would be seeking a decree of nullity from the Catholic Church.

I understand the church is more lenient than it used to be, although i’ve never tried for an annulment before.

Well, this is not the case at all. However, there are many more petitions for a decree and many of them come from those with very straightforward cases such as lack of form (Catholics who did not marry in the Church) or ligamen (marriage to someone who was not free to marry because they were previously married). There are many people who get married with impediments and defects of consent. The nullity process is a finding of fact.

My question is this:
Can i confidently stake my immortal soul on the decision of the tribunal?

You can have moral certainty regarding their decision. In absence of fraud on your part, of course.

In other words, if they grant an annulment in error, and allow me to re-marry (in the RC church), would i be in mortal sin?

No. You would not.

 

[Polycarp1]

In other words, if they grant an annulment in error, and allow me to re-marry (in the RC church), would i be in mortal sin?

I would say only if you mislead the Church to get the annulment. God can never deceive or be deceived.

 

[seagal]

I read once that the Roman Rota overturns 90% of the diocesan decisions, so it’s hardly rare. It’s rare, however, that cases go as far as the Rota.

If your annulment is incorrect and you remarry, you are objectively committing adultery by having marital relations with someone other than your spouse. This means that even though you are not subjectively choosing to sin, your actions are still sinful. God may not hold you responsible for what you are doing, but He is still offended by your actions.

What you’re saying effectively is that the 10’s of thousands of people going through the annulment process should not trust that their diocesan tribunal will make the right judgement but should go to Rome for a final decision. That’s absurdly impractical.

 

[EasterJoy]

…Can i confidently stake my immortal soul on the decision of the tribunal? In other words, if they grant an annulment in error, and allow me to re-marry (in the RC church), would i be in mortal sin?

Provided that you do nothing to mislead the tribunal, either by lying or by what you choose not to disclose, yes, you will be innocent if you trust a decision by the tribunal that you are free to marry.

 

[Otche_Nash]

Perhaps you shared details with your the priest that make it evident you have a solid case. I am not sure what he based his comment on. You state you are Orthodox in your profile, are you marrying a Catholic or planning to come into full communion with the Church? I am not sure why you would be seeking a decree of nullity from the Catholic Church.

1ke, Yes the priest asked me several questions about my former marriage, and seemed to feel it would be approved. It is true that i am Orthodox. I don’t have a particular woman in mind, or even know if i will ever find one, but i am in the process of converting to Catholicism.

P.S. My decision to convert will not be affected by the inability to remarry.

 

[1ke]

1ke, Yes the priest asked me several questions about my former marriage, and seemed to feel it would be approved. It is true that i am Orthodox. I don’t have a particular woman in mind, or even know if i will ever find one, but i am in the process of converting to Catholicism.

P.S. My decision to convert will not be affected by the inability to remarry.

Welcome!

Since you are Orthodox, please keep in mind that many Latin Rite Catholic priests are not familiar with some of the nuances regarding validity of Orthodox marriages. You may want to talk to an Eastern Rite priest if you have not already done so.

 

[Otche_Nash]

Welcome!

Since you are Orthodox, please keep in mind that many Latin Rite Catholic priests are not familiar with some of the nuances regarding validity of Orthodox marriages. You may want to talk to an Eastern Rite priest if you have not already done so.

Thanks, i appreciate the advice, but i was protestant when i married. Up until now, i never considered spending the rest of my life as a celibate, but now it seems to be a possibility. God’s will be done.

 

[hurting]

What you’re saying effectively is that the 10’s of thousands of people going through the annulment process should not trust that their diocesan tribunal will make the right judgement but should go to Rome for a final decision. That’s absurdly impractical.

The practicality of appealing to the Rota should not be an issue. Yes, it is true that people should view the U.S. tribunal system with great skepticism. The idea that suddenly there were exponentially more invalid marriages in the U.S. starting in the mid 1960’s (several hundred per year to over 60,000) is patently incredulous to anyone who would examine the matter as in the case of Robert Vasoli.

I would argue that the bar is higher than others here have suggested whereby unless you purposely deceive the tribunal you can rest assured of your salvation. Odds are, absent a defect of form (rare), the OP’s petition will rest on consent (canon 1095) and the ability to render such consent. The opportunity for abuse by the tribunal here is real, and I’m not sure that one can rely on it. Put simply, the tribunals in this country look for ways to annul marriages as the annulment has been deemed to be a pastoral tool.

 

[Cojuanco]

The practicality of appealing to the Rota should not be an issue. Yes, it is true that people should view the U.S. tribunal system with great skepticism. The idea that suddenly there were exponentially more invalid marriages in the U.S. starting in the mid 1960’s (several hundred per year to over 60,000) is patently incredulous to anyone who would examine the matter as in the case of Robert Vasoli.

I would argue that the bar is higher than others here have suggested whereby unless you purposely deceive the tribunal you can rest assured of your salvation. Odds are, absent a defect of form (rare), the OP’s petition will rest on consent (canon 1095) and the ability to render such consent. The opportunity for abuse by the tribunal here is real, and I’m not sure that one can rely on it. Put simply, the tribunals in this country look for ways to annul marriages as the annulment has been deemed to be a pastoral tool.

You are aware that most cases these days seem to be lack of form (a Catholic marrying someone in front of a Justice of the Peace) or ligamen (Joe marries Jane, who is not actually free to marry), right? The reason it increased in the 1960s is attributable to the fact that firstly, many Catholics got it in their minds through bad catechesis that a purely civil marriage was just as good as one in church. Second, that civil divorce in general became more common (due to the liberalization of the law and the removal of the social stigma) thus creating the conditions for a lot of ligamen cases. That, once again, did affect Catholics. So you have Catholics getting into invalid unions. That the tribunals would grant them is less an indictment on them and more an indictment at the sorry state of catechesis since at least the 1950s.

Then there is the fact that more Catholics know now about annulment, and, for a variety of reasons, are more willing to submit a case. That there are 60,000 judgments of lack of validity means nothing if the caseload increased at the same proportion. This may be due to liberalization of civil divorce laws (why approach the tribunal if, should they offer a judgment of lack of validity, the State won’t see it the same way?), and perhaps a greater amount of awareness of the rights of the Catholic layman in canon law.

 

[EasterJoy]

This may be due to liberalization of civil divorce laws (why approach the tribunal if, should they offer a judgment of lack of validity, the State won’t see it the same way?), and perhaps a greater amount of awareness of the rights of the Catholic layman in canon law.

Just to clarify: The Church won’t investigate a case for invalidity unless there has been a divorce, lest the process itself alienate the affection of spouses who are validly married.

It is also true, however, that in the past a Catholic might have stayed in a plainly invalid marriage because by divorcing they might be subjected to abject poverty, social ostracism, extreme embarrassment, or the loss of all contact with their children. It was hardly unknown for anyone, Catholic or not, to have opted for a house of strife or infidelity or sometimes even a gravely dangerous situation under which they would have been allowed by the Church to separate even if the bond remained, rather than face the social and material consequences of divorce. There were places where life was very hard on divorcees, especially women and especially a lower-class or impoverished spouse of any social standing who had married into a very wealthy family.

 

[underacloud]

If your annulment is incorrect and you remarry, you are objectively committing adultery by having marital relations with someone other than your spouse. This means that even though you are not subjectively choosing to sin, your actions are still sinful. God may not hold you responsible for what you are doing, but He is still offended by your actions.

If the OP, or anyone else, is honest in the tribunal process they would remain invincibly ignorant even if the tribunal errs in its findings. Thus, God *will not *(rather than “may not”) hold him responsible for any material sin (or objective sin).

Also, I’m not sure we can say that all material sin (vs actual sin) offends God. This is a complex philosophical point, but all the OP needs to know is that he would be doing nothing wrong in abiding by the ruling of the tribunal.

 

[chevalier]

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The authority of the tribunal is the same authority that the church has through the apostolic authority passed from the apostles.

I am sure speaking to your priest will help you greatly.

Nope. No power on earth can dissolve a valid and consummated marriage, not even the Pope. Much less a tribunal. The tribunal doesn’t retroactively make a marriage invalid. The tribunal can actually be wrong, and such an error doesn’t unmake the marriage that was erroneously declared null.

Fraud happens, and mistakes happen. Also, Rome is stricter than lower courts.

Just to clarify: The Church won’t investigate a case for invalidity unless there has been a divorce, lest the process itself alienate the affection of spouses who are validly married.

That’s just a custom in the US, and the reason isn’t really known. Normally, you don’t want to get a civil divorce until you know that your marriage is canonically null, rather.

The practicality of appealing to the Rota should not be an issue. Yes, it is true that people should view the U.S. tribunal system with great skepticism. The idea that suddenly there were exponentially more invalid marriages in the U.S. starting in the mid 1960’s (several hundred per year to over 60,000) is patently incredulous to anyone who would examine the matter as in the case of Robert Vasoli.

I would argue that the bar is higher than others here have suggested whereby unless you purposely deceive the tribunal you can rest assured of your salvation. Odds are, absent a defect of form (rare), the OP’s petition will rest on consent (canon 1095) and the ability to render such consent. The opportunity for abuse by the tribunal here is real, and I’m not sure that one can rely on it. Put simply, the tribunals in this country look for ways to annul marriages as the annulment has been deemed to be a pastoral tool.

Actually, if you know the tribunal erred, you must act married, even if your spouse remarries. An awful situation to be in, sure, but a mistaken ruling from a tribunal doesn’t create any right to attempt marriage while the other spouse lives.

 

[His_helpmeet]

My husband recently went through the nullity process with his ex. (There was strong evidence from the get-go that the marriage was NEVER valid, which was proven to be right based on the tribunal’s findings. She told him, and confirmed to a witness that she had said this, that as far as she was concerned, marriage was glorified common-law with ceremonial benefits attached and the whole wedding was just symbolic and didn’t really mean anything anyway.) Here are my thoughts:

1. The amount of evidence that must be presented suggests to me that most of these declarations are granted validly. My husband had to submit a preliminary request form, that included all kinds of questions about the wedding, the courtship, when the problems began in the marriage, the nature and cause of the problems, the attitude they both had towards having children, anything unusual that happened on the wedding day, etc. Then he had to come in for a more extensive interview. His ex was also contacted for an interview, but she declined to come in, which is her right under canon law. Next, he had 3 witnesses interviewed. These were people that he met within a couple of months of his marriage to his ex, and he had an additional witness in mind should the testimony from these prove less than satisfactory. Also, our parish priest had to submit a statement indicating his familiarity with my husband’s marital problems and his assessment of my husband’s character. They may also ask for counselling records, medical statements, and police reports, if there are any.
2. The process itself takes a LONG time, generally. The Church’s goal is to have the court of first instance completed within one year and the court of second instance completed within 6 months. However, these are not firm deadlines and there is no deadline. Some cases may take 2 years or more.
3. It is mandatory that an affirmative decision (i.e. marriage not valid) be reached by 2 separate tribunals prior to the marriage being declared invalid. Our regional tribunal in Edmonton, Alberta hears about 220 cases/year and grants about 150 declarations of nullity. Keep in mind that this is for all of Alberta, which has a population of about 8 million people total. I am not sure what the relative proportions of Catholics are.
4. Given the secular view of marriage, I am not surprised that more and more Catholics, sadly, are deciding to divorce. Ideally, all Catholics would present with a proper understanding of the nature of marriage gained from their Catholic upbringing and their marriage preparation. However, it seems to me that this is not always the case. My personal opinion is that the majority of problems among believers today result from people being poorly catechized. This is why I take the Catholic education of my stepdaughter very seriously, as does my husband. (He is an adult convert so was not raised in the faith; he has permitted me to take charge of our daughter’s education because I am a cradle Catholic and am familiar with faith formation for children.)

 

[His_helpmeet]

Nope. No power on earth can dissolve a valid and consummated marriage, not even the Pope. Much less a tribunal.

This is true of a sacramental marriage, but not a natural marriage. There are two situations in which a natural marriage can be dissolved:

1. Two unbaptized parties marry. They decide to separate. One party decides to become baptized and would like the marriage dissolved, and the marriage breakdown was not primarily the fault of this party. The bishop can dissolve this natural marriage; this is called the Pauline Privilege.
2. One baptized and one unbaptized party marry. They decide to separate. The baptized party was not the primary reason for the marriage breakdown, and would like the marriage dissolved. The Pope can dissolve this natural marriage; this is called the Petrine Privilege or the Favour of the Faith.

If the marriage is sacramental (i.e. a marriage between two baptized parties, or two parties who were both baptized after the marriage) a dissolution is not possible; they must seek a declaration of nullity