Validity of the nullity

[Jon_S_1]

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.

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.

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.

I am not sure how you took my comment about the authority of the church to mean the church could dissolve a valid marriage. Rather what I wrote, and can clarify here, is that the Church has the authority to settle the dispute between the parties as to whether or not a valid marriage took place. The authority of the tribunal comes from the same church who has held the truth of the sacrament if marriage. The church that defines marriage has the authority to say whether that marriage met that definition.

 

[Honour]

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. 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.

Interesting…I had a question about this one. My case is currently being processed. My case is a ligamen case due to the fact that my husband (baptized non-catholic) was previously married to a woman who he told me was baptized non-catholic as well. The question I had in my head, since no one knows where she is…or where/when/how she was baptized. What would be true IF she actually had not been validly baptized. This would be same as the “natural marriage” stated above…she was at fault for the divorce, but he never requested it be dissolved…soooo would their marriage still be valid if she had not truly been baptized? If their marriage was not valid, does that mean my first marriage was valid (if no other impediments (there where so I still have a case, just a formal one)) since I too was baptized non-catholic?

And please don’t tell me to ask my priest…he didn’t even know what a ligamen case was. He kept telling me that I had to file a formal case, and the fact that my ex husband was previously married had no bearing on the validity of my marriage!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Interesting…I had a question about this one. My case is currently being processed. My case is a ligamen case due to the fact that my husband (baptized non-catholic) was previously married to a woman who he told me was baptized non-catholic as well. The question I had in my head, since no one knows where she is…or where/when/how she was baptized. What would be true IF she actually had not been validly baptized. This would be same as the “natural marriage” stated above…she was at fault for the divorce, but he never requested it be dissolved…soooo would their marriage still be valid if she had not truly been baptized? If their marriage was not valid, does that mean my first marriage was valid (if no other impediments (there where so I still have a case, just a formal one)) since I too was baptized non-catholic?

And please don’t tell me to ask my priest…he didn’t even know what a ligamen case was. He kept telling me that I had to file a formal case, and the fact that my ex husband was previously married had no bearing on the validity of my marriage!

If I’m reading you correct you are concerned your husbands first marriage was possibly dissolved by Petrine Privalege. However, it wasn’t dissolved so he was validly married when he married you which doesn’t work. You should be able to talk to a canon lawyer in your Diocese, often there are also priests (maybe in another parish) who formerly were on the tribunal. They could maybe assist you better.

 

[Honour]

If I’m reading you correct you are concerned your husbands first marriage was possibly dissolved by Petrine Privalege. However, it wasn’t dissolved so he was validly married when he married you which doesn’t work. You should be able to talk to a canon lawyer in your Diocese, often there are also priests (maybe in another parish) who formerly were on the tribunal. They could maybe assist you better.

Thanks, that makes sense. Which leads me to one more…what if his first wife was actually baptized catholic, would that mean their marriage was invalid due to lack of form and our marriage was valid (disregarding the other consideration)?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Interesting…I had a question about this one. My case is currently being processed. My case is a ligamen case due to the fact that my husband (baptized non-catholic) was previously married to a woman who he told me was baptized non-catholic as well. The question I had in my head, since no one knows where she is…or where/when/how she was baptized. What would be true IF she actually had not been validly baptized. This would be same as the “natural marriage” stated above…she was at fault for the divorce, but he never requested it be dissolved…soooo would their marriage still be valid if she had not truly been baptized? If their marriage was not valid, does that mean my first marriage was valid (if no other impediments (there where so I still have a case, just a formal one)) since I too was baptized non-catholic?

And please don’t tell me to ask my priest…he didn’t even know what a ligamen case was. He kept telling me that I had to file a formal case, and the fact that my ex husband was previously married had no bearing on the validity of my marriage!

Thanks, that makes sense. Which leads me to one more…what if his first wife was actually baptized catholic, would that mean their marriage was invalid due to lack of form and our marriage was valid (disregarding the other consideration)?

This is an educated guess, but my thoughts are the first marriage may be invalid, but that doesn’t necessarily mean yours was valid. Hopefully someone else can help you more with that. It’s a scenario that doesn’t apply to my situation so I haven’t researched it much.

 

[1ke]

Interesting…I had a question about this one. My case is currently being processed. My case is a ligamen case due to the fact that my husband (baptized non-catholic) was previously married to a woman who he told me was baptized non-catholic as well.

As I understand your above statement, you are pursuing a decree of nullity for your marriage to a man you are now divorced from, and this man was previously married/divorced before marrying you, on the grounds of ligamen.

Johnny married Sally.
Johnny and Sally divorced.
Johnny married you.
Johnny and you divorced.

Your position is that your marriage to Johnny was not valid due to ligamen.

The question I had in my head, since no one knows where she is…or where/when/how she was baptized. What would be true IF she actually had not been validly baptized. This would be same as the “natural marriage” stated above…she was at fault for the divorce, but he never requested it be dissolved…soooo would their marriage still be valid if she had not truly been baptized?

Yes. Ligamen would exist whether or not she was baptized.

However, the fact that you cannot find her presents an issue. In a ligamen case, testimony from both is required in order to establish that it was a first marriage for both of them, their baptismal status, and that she is still living.

So, ligamen may not be an option, and if not then a formal case would be required.

You should talk to the judicial vicar of your diocese if your pastor is not knowledgeable about nullity cases.

If their marriage was not valid, does that mean my first marriage was valid (if no other impediments (there where so I still have a case, just a formal one)) since I too was baptized non-catholic?

Yes, that is what it would mean.

 

[1ke]

Thanks, that makes sense. Which leads me to one more…what if his first wife was actually baptized catholic, would that mean their marriage was invalid due to lack of form and our marriage was valid (disregarding the other consideration)?

Yes, that is what it would mean.

 

[hurting]

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.

I do not have the stats at hand, but I do not believe the majority of cases are defects of form.

Your speculation in the second paragraph is simply the party line put forth by the purveyors of easy annulment. Occam’s razor suggests that when the number of annulments explodes (as it did in the mid-60’s), it is because someone moved the goalposts.

 

[hurting]

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.

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.

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.

Chev,

Here’s the rub. What constitutes knowing the tribunal erred? Perhaps I know of a patently false assertion made by one of the parties that was relied upon by the tribunal to render a declaration of nullity; in this case it is pretty obvious that I’d have to ignore the invalid declaration and continue to live as though I was married. What about doubt in the system itself, namely the high rates of overturn of declarations of nullity by the Roman Rota as the court of second instance to which you refer above?

As an aside, someone needs to hold the U.S. bishops to account for the requirement of civil divorce before annulment. I have never heard a compelling argument for this concept and can offer several that support the sequence to which you refer.

 

[Cojuanco]

I do not have the stats at hand, but I do not believe the majority of cases are defects of form.

Your speculation in the second paragraph is simply the party line put forth by the purveyors of easy annulment. Occam’s razor suggests that when the number of annulments explodes (as it did in the mid-60’s), it is because someone moved the goalposts.

Well, both our theories seem to be equally simple, so I do not see where Occam’s razor applies in this case.

I am not disputing that the tribunal somestimes abuses their power, nor that if either party sees an issue to appeal things to Rome. But I have heard of enough cases lasting years to know that the annulment process in this country is by no means easy.

 

[Otche_Nash]

Is it not true, that since an ordained priest has the power to loose and bind, that by dispensing the sacrament of marriage upon a husband and wife, that THIS new marriage is valid, regardless of whether or not the tribunal erred in finding one of the partners had an invalid prior marriage?

 

[1ke]

Is it not true, that since an ordained priest has the power to loose and bind, that by dispensing the sacrament of marriage upon a husband and wife, that THIS new marriage is valid, regardless of whether or not the tribunal erred in finding one of the partners had an invalid prior marriage?

The new marriage would be putative, meaning entered into in good faith (but objectively and unbeknownst to them, invalid).

 

[chevalier]

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

I presumed we were talking about a sacramental marriage. We were talking specifically about the apparent idea that a nullity decree given in error somehow invalidates a marriage.

I am not sure how you took my comment about the authority of the church to mean the church could dissolve a valid marriage. Rather what I wrote, and can clarify here, is that the Church has the authority to settle the dispute between the parties as to whether or not a valid marriage took place. The authority of the tribunal comes from the same church who has held the truth of the sacrament if marriage. The church that defines marriage has the authority to say whether that marriage met that definition.

The interpretation still yields to the actual state of facts. A marriage can’t be made invalid by a nullity decree given in error. Where a nullity decree is given in error, the marriage remains valid. The judgment is not infallible, by the way.

 

[hurting]

Well, both our theories seem to be equally simple, so I do not see where Occam’s razor applies in this case.

I am not disputing that the tribunal somestimes abuses their power, nor that if either party sees an issue to appeal things to Rome. But I have heard of enough cases lasting years to know that the annulment process in this country is by no means easy.

Actually our positions are quite different.

This article catholicworldreport.com/Item/470/annulment_nation.aspx
provides a stark assessment of the annulment situation in the U.S. The overwhelming majority of petitions for nullity are based on claims of defective consent (roughly 80%), and the overwhelming majority of these are granted by U.S. tribunals. I did not see where the article addressed the overturn rate by the Rota, but it has been documented by Vasoli and others.

Your ‘Occam’s Razor’ perspective was based on a faulty assumption that the majority of annulments are granted on the basis of defect of form, no? To the extent that the underlying supposition is not true, Occam’s Razoe therefore can not apply, right?

Just because things take a long time does not make them hard or trying.

 

[chevalier]

Is it not true, that since an ordained priest has the power to loose and bind, that by dispensing the sacrament of marriage upon a husband and wife, that THIS new marriage is valid, regardless of whether or not the tribunal erred in finding one of the partners had an invalid prior marriage?

No. There is no such power to dissolve a sacramental valid and consummated marriage.

The above is also the reason why non-consummated marriages are dispensed rather than declared null. Dispensation of a non-consummated marriage is a sure-fire, it creates reality. On the other hand, a nullity decree only expresses an official view of reality that’s normally accepted for truth but is still capable of error.

 

[joanofarc2008]

I think that we are forgetting that the vast majority of cases that heard at the Roman Rota are cases that are there for appeal so it can be assumed that there is a reason to believe that there is something wrong with the case. Therefore it is not a random sampling. Therefore the 80% number is a straw man argument. Hey, 90% of statistics lie.

 

[mdgspencer]

I think you should trust the Church.
It is a matter of a general attitude. If you don’t believe what the Church says, you will have problems in this and other things.
Of course, you may not actually have a case if you see about getting an annulment. But there is actually nothing against checking into it.
If such skepticism became a general thing, the many people who obtained annulments will become confused, bothered and bewildered. Am I really married to the person I married in church, they will ask. This would be an unjust situation.

 

[hurting]

I think that we are forgetting that the vast majority of cases that heard at the Roman Rota are cases that are there for appeal so it can be assumed that there is a reason to believe that there is something wrong with the case. Therefore it is not a random sampling. Therefore the 80% number is a straw man argument. Hey, 90% of statistics lie.

Sorry, but this is a non sequitur. The high overturn rate of U.S. declarations of nullity, coupled with the admonishments of Popes JPII and BXVI to the U.S. tribunals, are prima facie evidence that something is amiss in this country in the tribunal system.

The ‘reason to believe’ is the knowledge that U.S. tribunals have moved the goalposts in the interest of pastoralism.

 

[hurting]

I think you should trust the Church.
It is a matter of a general attitude. If you don’t believe what the Church says, you will have problems in this and other things.
Of course, you may not actually have a case if you see about getting an annulment. But there is actually nothing against checking into it.
If such skepticism became a general thing, the many people who obtained annulments will become confused, bothered and bewildered. Am I really married to the person I married in church, they will ask. This would be an unjust situation.

The OP, nor anyone else who doubts the U.S. tribunal system, did not create the skepticism - it was the tribunals themselves who were aided and abetted by the hierarchy in the U.S. church.

Should we have trusted the Church leadership so implicitly on the sex abuse matter? They readily accepted the helping professions’ view that sexual abusers could be rehabilitated when the common sense that any parent would would have applied in such a situation would have made certain that abusers would never have been in contact with children again. The same helping professions inform the ‘magic wand’ defective consent annulment mentality.

The explosion of annulments in the U.S. has done far mroe to harm the sacrament of marriage than any other action or inaction on the part of the Church which has become too much of the world.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Sorry, but this is a non sequitur. The high overturn rate of U.S. declarations of nullity, coupled with the admonishments of Popes JPII and BXVI to the U.S. tribunals, are prima facie evidence that something is amiss in this country in the tribunal system.

The ‘reason to believe’ is the knowledge that U.S. tribunals have moved the goalposts in the interest of pastoralism.

But then again these studies are not looking at the full admonishments either. The admonishments were to not rely on the same reasons - not to not declare the decree of nullity. They also were to make the decree of nullity process more efficient - something these studies leave out completely - so again a straw man argument as these studies against the decree of nullity process have only quoted what they wanted heard.