Why aren't annulments public?

[nodito]

Please correct me if I am wrong: My understanding is that whether or not a declaration of nullity has been issued for a particular case is not available to the public. I’m wondering why this is the case.

I understand needing to keep the details of the investigation private. I understand how it may be a sensitive topic for many people and how it may hurt an adult child or an in-law who is not familiar with the concept, for example, to learn that their parents’ or loved one’s marriage was not valid. But since marriage is by nature a public sacrament that gives visible witness to the world, why is it not also the case that declarations of nullity are also available to the public, the same way that marriage banns are, for example?

 

[Gorgias]

I think I’d respond that the Church doesn’t publicize it when a marriage engagement breaks off, so likewise, it doesn’t publicize when a marriage is found to have been invalid. Respecting people’s privacy in difficulty ultimately situations is charitable, after all…

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

At its heart, a decree of nullity is a tragedy. It is a truly sad proclamation, even if it frees one of the spouses to continue their life.

Nothing good could come from a proclamation, just idle gossip.

 

[tawny]

Agree, well stated.

 

[nodito]

Nothing good could come from a proclamation, just idle gossip.

I probably shouldn’t have used the marriage banns as an example because those are published. I wasn’t envisioning a proclamation so much as the information just made available to those who request it.

I can easily think of situations in which it might be useful to know whether a person has received a decree of nullity that don’t involve gossip. Suppose you were interested in pursuing romantically a Catholic divorcee, it might be useful to know whether they had received an annulment before you asked them on a date. Or if you were invited to the wedding of a person that you knew had been previously married. I can see it being useful in determining whether you could attend or not without having to dredge up potentially painful questions about the last marriage with the bride. Yes, I realize this would only work in certain limited situations in which one of the parties was Catholic, but still, it proves that seeking the information need not be nefarious.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Nothing good could come from a proclamation, just idle gossip.

I probably shouldn’t have used the marriage banns as an example because those are published. I wasn’t envisioning a proclamation so much as the information just made available to those who request it.

I can easily think of situations in which it might be useful to know whether a person has received a decree of nullity that don’t involve gossip. Suppose you were interested in pursuing romantically a Catholic divorcee, it might be useful to know whether they had received an annulment before you asked them on a date. Or if you were invited to the wedding of a person that you knew had been previously married. I can see it being useful in determining whether you could attend or not without having to dredge up potentially painful questions about the last marriage with the bride. Yes, I realize this would only work in certain limited situations in which one of the parties was Catholic, but still, it proves that seeking the information need not be nefarious.

If one is interested in pursuing another romantically–knowing that person had been married, it would be more prudent to have a 1:1 conversation. Being able to page through the church directory and be assured that the person received an annulment would only serve to abdicate the responsibility of discussing the important questions that come up in remarriage…and it could create very awkward assumptions as many who receive annulments do not wish to be in a romantic relationship.

 

[1neophyte]

Suppose you were interested in pursuing romantically a Catholic divorcee, it might be useful to know whether they had received an annulment before you asked them on a date.

So you would consult this theoretical public record in advance? How creepy do you want to be? Should all inquiries into the public record be recorded as well, so that the Catholic divorcee would be able to find out what a creep you are? It might be useful for them to know, if they’re going to date you.

Or if you were invited to the wedding of a person that you knew had been previously married. I can see it being useful in determining whether you could attend or not without having to dredge up potentially painful questions about the last marriage with the bride.

Ah, so you want to double down on the creepiness. Again, would the bride have a right to know that you’re creeping around into her personal business? Or would your “right” to know everyone else’s business trump their rights?

Ick. I need to go take a long, long shower now.

 

[Horton]

In my opinion an individual’s right to privacy supersedes anyone’s right to know. I can’t think of any situation where a person would be entitled to that information. If it is needed by church authorities, the person with the decree can provide permission.

 

[nodito]

Ah, so you want to double down on the creepiness. Again, would the bride have a right to know that you’re creeping around into her personal business? Or would your “right” to know everyone else’s business trump their rights?

Ick. I need to go take a long, long shower now.

I’m sorry I offended your sensibilities, 1neophyte! I’m really trying to understand and tease out an answer better than “because it gives some guy online the creeps.” Your quote gets to the crux of the matter. Why is an annulment someone’s “personal business” when the consent given in marriage is of public character?

1663 Since marriage establishes the couple in a public state of life in the Church, it is fitting that its celebration be public, in the framework of a liturgical celebration, before the priest (or a witness authorized by the Church), the witnesses, and the assembly of the faithful.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Because consenting to marriage and having an annulment are two different beasts. I know of a good number of annulments that happened when one of the spouses was in opposition…either because they had seriously stated their vows or they wanted to make trouble for their ex. Only one of the 2 must be open to the annulment process…so it could create great trauma to force an “uncooperative” spouse to declare something they did not will.

 

[Joe_5859]

I wasn’t envisioning a proclamation so much as the information just made available to those who request it.

But even for marriage, which is celebrated publicly, a parish isn’t going to supply a copy of the marriage certificate to anyone and everyone who asks for one. It’s not the county clerk’s office.

I do appreciate the question, because you are correct that marriage is (ordinarily) celebrated publicly in the Church. But what would it even mean for the Church to make annulments “public”? So anyone for any reason could call the parish office and ask if so-and-so had received an annulment and expect an answer? It wouldn’t work that way for any sacrament, though. I can’t just call a parish and say, “I was curious when so-and-so received their Confirmation. Can you tell me when that was and who the celebrant was?” They’re not going to tell you unless you need to know.

 

[phil19034]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Nothing good could come from a proclamation, just idle gossip.

I probably shouldn’t have used the marriage banns as an example because those are published. I wasn’t envisioning a proclamation so much as the information just made available to those who request it.

I can easily think of situations in which it might be useful to know whether a person has received a decree of nullity that don’t involve gossip. Suppose you were interested in pursuing romantically a Catholic divorcee, it might be useful to know whether they had received an annulment before you asked them on a date. Or if you were invited to the wedding of a person that you knew had been previously married. I can see it being useful in determining whether you could attend or not without having to dredge up potentially painful questions about the last marriage with the bride. Yes, I realize this would only work in certain limited situations in which one of the parties was Catholic, but still, it proves that seeking the information need not be nefarious.

Lay people (who do not work for the Church) should not have access to that information. The only ones who should be able to easily access that information are priests and bishops for official reasons.

When a couple is dating, they should get all that information out in the open between the two of them. If you are following Church teachings, you would be remaining chaste, so no problem there. Also, I would hope that you have spoken to the woman first and found out that she was divorced before you started kissing him/her.

So that’s not a valid reason.

HOWEVER - I do think that more parishes (or run by the dioceses in regional areas) should have more programs for annulled Catholics (like http://www.catholicsdivorce.com/) which can really help divorced Catholics understand the annulment process and help them pick up the pieces after divorce.

In regards to your question about attending a Catholic divorcee’s wedding, that shouldn’t be that hard either. If they are marrying a Catholic in a non-Catholic Church then it’s an invalid wedding. If they are marrying in the Catholic Church, then it’s totally cool. And if they are marrying a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic Church then it would be no different than if you were attending a Catholic (who’s never been married) who is marrying a protestant in a protestant Church. The Church does not typically announce people who have received dispensation to marry in a protestant Church, so your reasoning here is flawed too. If you are invited to the wedding, chances are, you have known they were engaged for some time and you should already know their state and the state of their soon to be spouse.

God Bless.

 

[1neophyte]

I’m sorry I offended your sensibilities, 1neophyte! I’m really trying to understand and tease out an answer better than “because it gives some guy online the creeps.” Your quote gets to the crux of the matter. Why is an annulment someone’s “personal business” when the consent given in marriage is of public character?

It’s just such an odd question because the answer is so self-evident. A marriage is public because it is something to be celebrated; an annulment is not. It’s essentially no different than the contents of someone’s confession. It’s something for them to choose to share with a trusted friend or family member, or potential future spouse. It’s not something appropriate for the public record.

 

[nodito]

But what would it even mean for the Church to make annulments “public”? So anyone for any reason could call the parish office and ask if so-and-so had received an annulment and expect an answer? It wouldn’t work that way for any sacrament, though.

Me playing devil’s advocate: Is it possible to call a Catholic diocese and ask if Fr. John is a priest in good standing? Would they tell you when he was ordained? I would agree that some sacraments (confession, naturally, anointing of the sick, etc) are not and should not be made public, but they don’t establish a public state of life the way that Holy Orders or Matrimony does.

It’s essentially no different than the contents of someone’s confession.

Sure it is. There’s a difference between having it be made public that so and so is free to marry and having it be public that so and so is free to marry because her last attempt at marriage was invalid due to x, y, or z.

It’s just such an odd question because the answer is so self-evident.

Well that’s just lovely.

 

[ChunkMonk]

That’s a little hyperbolic.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Fascinating question. I’d say that “annulments” are just as public as the Parties want them to be, which is the same as in the case of a wedding or baptism or whatever. They are, in a sense, “public” due to the nature of the matter, just like a wedding/marriage is. Nevertheless, when it comes to marriage, if somebody wants me to prove to them that I am actually married, I’ll say that they have to take my word for it because they will probably never be able to uncover the civil documentation of the fact and I won’t feel obligated to show them my personal documents.

People who need to know my marital status know it or can find out. Everyone else is out of luck. For nullity decisions, likewise, those who need to know, know. Beyond that, it’s up to the Parties to reveal it.

Frankly, I’d be happy if nullity Sentences were always properly “published” to the Parties (see c. 1615, if you care to see what I’m talking about). That would be public enough for me.

Dan

 

[Joe_5859]

Me playing devil’s advocate: Is it possible to call a Catholic diocese and ask if Fr. John is a priest in good standing? Would they tell you when he was ordained? I would agree that some sacraments (confession, naturally, anointing of the sick, etc) are not and should not be made public, but they don’t establish a public state of life the way that Holy Orders or Matrimony does.

Probably. And most dioceses publish a directory of their priests and put it on their website. But they don’t do that for married couples. If I called and asked if the couple that sits three pews ahead of me was validly married in the Catholic Church (because I had a suspicion they actually eloped to Vegas instead), they would probably tell me to mind my own business.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The purpose of public marriage announcements or “banns”, as I understand it, was to give those who might have some reason to object to a marriage, such as secret spouses of one of the engaged folks, or someone else with knowledge of a marriage (name removed by moderator)ediment, to come forward.

As it is highly unlikely (note, fixed typo here) that some person not already involved in annulment proceedings would have some showstopper evidence that could stop the annulment from being granted, there is no reason to announce an snnulmemt.

 

[1neophyte]

Sure it is. There’s a difference between having it be made public that so and so is free to marry and having it be public that so and so is free to marry because her last attempt at marriage was invalid due to x, y, or z.

The only people that need to know if someone is free to marry are people who can discuss the matter directly with the person, not people that can skulk around anonymously into their business.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

The thing is, even the wedding baans are a fleeting posting in a bulletin that might have a server that backs it up for 6 months.

And that’s for parishioners.

My husband and I were both labeled “transient” Catholics when we were married–we did not have an established home parish due to the frequent college & post-college moves that we both faced. Funny enough, we both had developed friendships with priests who knew us as we moved around.

My husband’s favorite priest was one from his college, about 2 hours north of us. We chose him for our wedding prep and to officiate at our wedding because the priests we knew were both leading churches through reorgs and besides being busy, they didn’t even know if they were going to be able to offer us an actual church or if we’d be married in some temp gym set up.

At any rate…we did not have parishes to publish banns on our behalf, and the parish we were married in didn’t publish Banns for non-parishioners. We don’t have a “real” newspaper in our state so we didn’t publish anything there, either.

In short, one would be foolish to hold Banns as some kind of “church announcement” And I know neither our current parish nor the one we were married in, would entertain some random person calling to ask the specifics of our marriage. They might not even confirm we attend Mass at all, depending on the secretary’s mood that day.