Why do I keep reading posts about married catholics getting formally annulled?

[couponfit]

Porn addiction, contraception, and pre-marital sex.

I think the large number of annullments is just a reflection of the large number of people who have no business getting married but attempt to do so anyway.

Study after study shows that 25% of men and 9% of women in the west are addicted to porn. These people are either incapable of correctly understanding what marriage is supposed to be or incapable of actually living that understanding out in day to day life. These have no business getting married.

The same goes for contraception. If the studies are right and 90% of all Catholics use artificial contraception, then these couples are not open to life. Openness to life is a prerequisite for a valid marriage.

A man whose girlfriend has sex with him before the bond of matrimony should have no expectation that she remain chaste within the bond of matrimony. Likewise, a woman whose boyfriend insists on sex before marriage really shouldn’t have the expection that he will suddenly be able to control himself within marraige.

One has to question the validity of the matrimonian bond where contraception use is assumed prior to marriage and/or where one or both of the spouses is incapable of chastity within the boundaries of the marriage because of addiction to sexual sin or a past history of promiscuity prior to marriage. If there seems to be a large number of annullments, it is probably because a large number of marriages were never really marriages in the first place for exactly these reason.

-Tim-

So if my wife cheats on me, or looks at a movie with nudity (which is pornographic), can I seek annulment?

 

[couponfit]

I think one of the things that one has to realize is that annulments are extremely private matters. The details in there are usually very disturbing to say the least, and there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that you won’t see unless you are involved. It’s not an easy process at all. It’s a hard one. But it’s also a healing one. Those people who go through an annulment on average are not going to say “Oh I enjoyed it immensely, we had a great time.” They have to confront the things of their past, and expound on them in a very difficult way. They have to face their fears, and they have to truly examine what their life was like when they got married.

Are they common? Maybe. But they aren’t easy, nor are they anything I wish any person should have to go through. I do thank God that he has given a way for those who did not have a valid marriage to be examined and approved, so they can move on with their life and experience the true sacrament.

That’s a real thoughtful answer thanks. I think were I must be off track, since I just reviewed canon, is that the OPs on questions are giving us too much info without any details that isn’t necessary. On the surface the OP seems to lack the reverence perhaps to avoid details. It would be a person posting, “I’m gay and I’m going to become a priest, what’s a good seminary?”. There’s just enough info to raise an eyebrow but not enough detail to understand. It becomes polarizing.

 

[couponfit]

news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19970417&id=_OkyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1QcGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6957,3350093

osv.com/OSV4MeNav/WhattheChurchTeaches/WTCTAnnulments/WhattheChurchTeachesTheDignityofMarriage/tabid/387/Default.aspx

catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=18&id=57425

I think these numbers are alarming and we should be looking at the cause… if it isn’t a change in process and/or attitude toward the annulment process, than we certainly need to look at our pre-marital counseling within the Church.

So if we simply say “I didn’t really know better the first time, but I understand it now”, then that’s acceptable? And at what point is a person suppose to understand marriage, after the first one, or the second, or the third?

A great example is canon 1101, sec 2, which requires intention for marital permanence. So how do we submit ourselves for marriage, get a divorce, and ask for an annulment claiming we didn’t really mean it? How do we know when it’s really meant?

 

[couponfit]

This board is only a small representation of Catholics. You see annulments because those are the very people that come here to post questions about an annulment, but that’s not representative of everyone here or every Catholic – but the ones whose marriages are troubled.

There was another thread. Overall annulments are down. In the Diocese of Metuchen had 287 annulments granted in 1987. Recently the number was 47. I can’t look for the exact number, but it was a thread this week – but annulmment are down about 2,000 or 3,000 when the Church asked and 88% of the Dioceses responded with figures.

Probably right, this is skewed! I’m seeing the few cases. Thanks.

 

[TrueLight]

A man whose girlfriend has sex with him before the bond of matrimony should have no expectation that she remain chaste within the bond of matrimony. Likewise, a woman whose boyfriend insists on sex before marriage really shouldn’t have the expection that he will suddenly be able to control himself within marraige.

-Tim-

Oh really? Wow. So if a couple has premarital sex, they should not expect their spouse to be faithful to their vows. I’m sorry, but I totally disagree.

 

[Leegal]

So if we simply say “I didn’t really know better the first time, but I understand it now”, then that’s acceptable? And at what point is a person suppose to understand marriage, after the first one, or the second, or the third?

A great example is canon 1101, sec 2, which requires intention for marital permanence. So how do we submit ourselves for marriage, get a divorce, and ask for an annulment claiming we didn’t really mean it? How do we know when it’s really meant?

Canon 1101, Sec. 2 prohibits using the marriage to gain permanent residence in this country or to legimitize a child. It’s the intent that was present before the marriage took place that can declare nullification. When a person enters a marriage with an agenda – getting a green card – they have entered both into an invalid marriage and broken a law. Also, you should not marry someone just so the child has a father because you are doing it for a reason other than what the marriage is intended. Yes, it’s sad that people have children outside of marriage – but using the child as a means to an end (get a man to marry you) because that’s not how the Church understands marriage.

Everything reads as to what was present before the marriage ceremony took place.

Example. Adultery in and of itself is not enough for a decree of nullity. But, if before the marriage I was promiscuous, had lover(s), hid them from my prospective husband, and intended to continue with my lover after marriage – I intended to commit fraud by withholding something that he should have known before the marriage and I did not enter into the marriage with the intent to be faithful, which is required that I have the intent to be faithful when that sacrament takes place.

A one night stand, or even an affair, as painful as it may be, after the fact that a sacramental marriage has taken place is not grounds for nullification, if the erring spouse never intended this to happen before the marriage took place, went into the marriage with all the proper consent – but somewhere along the line feel into sin, temptation, fell out of love and took up with another, then the marriage is troubled but not sufficient grounds to say that the real intent and consent to marry as the Church teaches was not present.

Remember, to get a declaration of nullity is has to be based upon conditions present or hidden before the marriage took place that led to one or the other to either not be able to inform proper consent to the marriage – or to freely enter into a marriage.

 

[1ke]

So if my wife cheats on me, or looks at a movie with nudity (which is pornographic), can I seek annulment?

No.

 

[TrueLight]

So if we simply say “I didn’t really know better the first time, but I understand it now”, then that’s acceptable? And at what point is a person suppose to understand marriage, after the first one, or the second, or the third?

A great example is canon 1101, sec 2, which requires intention for marital permanence. So how do we submit ourselves for marriage, get a divorce, and ask for an annulment claiming we didn’t really mean it? How do we know when it’s really meant?

I’m glad I’m not the only one that sees those issues.

 

[Leegal]

Let me give you another example of conditions present before a marriage.

A young woman grows up in an abusive and alcoholic home – but Catholic. She meets a man and marries as soon as she can to get out of the house – this is not the purpose of marriage. She has an agenda.

They go to the priest first, but the priest recognizing that there’s something wrong REFUSES to marry them. They do not get a dispensation because the priest believes this marriage should not take place at all. The man is a non-practicing Episcoplian, has never been to Church except when he was Baptised as Episcopalian. But, it’s the woman who is the real concern – her reasons for marriage.

They go an marry in another Church – not Catholic.

There are a number of pre-existing problems:

I’m not a canon lawyer but I would suggest that this marriage violates a number of canons.

Grave lack of judgment on the part of the woman – you cannot use a marriage to get away from something.

Fraud because she withheld from him that she intended that divorce would follow to get her freedom, eventually.

She also willfully never intended it to be permanent, believing that civil law would take care of the problem.

She also married out of fear – fear of living in an abusive home where she had no freedom of her own, but married the first man she could find to get away.

There would be a number of problems, even if the Tribunal only found one of these to be the impediment because they all pre-existed the actual marriage.

 

[1ke]

So if we simply say “I didn’t really know better the first time, but I understand it now”, then that’s acceptable? And at what point is a person suppose to understand marriage, after the first one, or the second, or the third?

A great example is canon 1101, sec 2, which requires intention for marital permanence. So how do we submit ourselves for marriage, get a divorce, and ask for an annulment claiming we didn’t really mean it? How do we know when it’s really meant?

You are vastly oversimplying this. No, one cannot just say “I didn’t mean it” and obtain a decree of nullity.

This is legal territory. None of us here are canon lawyers, although some have had degrees of training at their diocese to assist in cases or have been through a case themselves.

You seem to believe Can 1101 to be very simple. However, if you get a copy of the New Commentary On The Code of Canon Law, you will see that there are over six pages written on this one canon alone.

 

[Leegal]

You are vastly oversimplying this. No, one cannot just say “I didn’t mean it” and obtain a decree of nullity.

This is legal territory. None of us here are canon lawyers, although some have had degrees of training at their diocese to assist in cases or have been through a case themselves.

You seem to believe Can 1101 to be very simple. However, if you get a copy of the New Commentary On The Code of Canon Law, you will see that there are over six pages written on this one canon alone.

That section specifically prohibits marrying for a green card or inducing a man to marry you by getting a father for your child. Pre-existing impediments to a real marriage where some fraud is involved. – not to mention that the first example is also against the law.

The Church gives clear examples of each section of the canon law. Maybe not every example, but sufficient that we lay people can understand you cannot enter into a valid green card marriage or induce a man to marry you to have a father for your baby but withholding your true intent.

 

[DCNBILL]

Let me give you another example of conditions present before a marriage.

A young woman grows up in an abusive and alcoholic home – but Catholic. She meets a man and marries as soon as she can to get out of the house – this is not the purpose of marriage. She has an agenda.

They go to the priest first, but the priest recognizing that there’s something wrong REFUSES to marry them. They do not get a dispensation because the priest believes this marriage should not take place at all. The man is a non-practicing Episcoplian, has never been to Church except when he was Baptised as Episcopalian. But, it’s the woman who is the real concern – her reasons for marriage.

They go an marry in another Church – not Catholic.

There are a number of pre-existing problems:

I’m not a canon lawyer but I would suggest that this marriage violates a number of canons.

Grave lack of judgment on the part of the woman – you cannot use a marriage to get away from something.

Fraud because she withheld from him that she intended that divorce would follow to get her freedom, eventually.

She also willfully never intended it to be permanent, believing that civil law would take care of the problem.

She also married out of fear – fear of living in an abusive home where she had no freedom of her own, but married the first man she could find to get away.

There would be a number of problems, even if the Tribunal only found one of these to be the impediment because they all pre-existed the actual marriage.

If the Catholic party did not get a dispensation then I believe this would entail “Total Lack of Canonical Form”

 

[joanofarc2008]

So if my wife cheats on me, or looks at a movie with nudity (which is pornographic), can I seek annulment?

You can seek it. It does not mean you will get it or that your case will be heard.

 

[Leegal]

So if my wife cheats on me, or looks at a movie with nudity (which is pornographic), can I seek annulment?

No. Everything is based upon the conditions present before marriage as defined by canon law.

 

[Leegal]

If the Catholic party did not get a dispensation then I believe this would entail “Total Lack of Canonical Form”

Thank you. It’s a true story. Too bad she didn’t listen. The priest knew; he would not have given dispensation because he was pretty angry.

 

[joanofarc2008]

This is legal territory. None of us here are canon lawyers, although some have had degrees of training at their diocese to assist in cases or have been through a case themselves

Actually there is at least one full Canon lawyer on these forums that does chime in quite often. I am sure if there is one there are others so I don’t tend to take anyone’s credentials for granted. I am not a Canon Lawyer. I now know you are not a Canon Lawyer. That is all we can truly say for sure on an internet forum unless we ask.

 

[TimothyH]

Oh really? Wow. So if a couple has premarital sex, they should not expect their spouse to be faithful to their vows. I’m sorry, but I totally disagree.

I was not clear that people can grow and change. People can come to God and repent. I did not leave room for God’s grace. So no, it is not automatically a disqualifier, no.

But I personally can’t see how I can demand sex from my girlfriend before marriage and if she consents, how I can then move forward into marriage with the expectation that she remain faithful. If she cannot control herself outside of marriage, what makes me think she will be able to within marriage?

And the same goes for women. If their boyfriend demands sex before they are married, what makes them think that this person will be able to exhibit self control once they are married?

I find it ironic that men who demand sex of their girlfriend before marriage are the same men who lament the lack of sex within marriage.

-Tim-

 

[FAB]

If the Catholic party did not get a dispensation then I believe this would entail “Total Lack of Canonical Form”

You are correct

 

[TimothyH]

Not per se - but they can be depending on context for instance a partner that says they are open to life during marriage prep but believes that open to life means using condoms or taking the pill while the other spouse believes that means having as many children as God wills them can be.

Porn could be the same thing if the addiction was hidden from the fiance/e at the time of the marriage and it affected the marriage.

As the above poster all of these things get into nitty-gritty case stuff that is closed and confidential.

That is exactly my point about porn. It is a hidden addiction. I think that many women don’t realize how addicted their boyfriends, fiance, or husbands really are. I do have experienc working with groups of men who are sexually addicted in one way or another. To the man, they all say that they thought their addiction woud go away when they get married but the only thing marriage did was make them hide their addiction more.

I think it impossible for a porn addict to develop a clear understanding of what marriage really is - self sacrificing, self donating love. Or at a minimum, if they understand it intellectually, their addiction prevents them from living it out fully in the context of a relationship between husband and wife. A porn addict is instead consumed with self gratification. For him it is impossible to give of himself. The very nature of the addiction is an inability to resist any urge to gratify onself.

One would not expect a drug addict to have a mature undertanding of the nature of marriage nor the ability to live it out. I think porn addicts are just as bad.

-Tim-

 

[TrueLight]

I was not clear that people can grow and change. People can come to God and repent. I did not leave room for God’s grace. So no, it is not automatically a disqualifier, no.

But I personally can’t see how I can demand sex from my girlfriend before marriage and if she consents, how I can then move forward into marriage with the expectation that she remain faithful. If she cannot control herself outside of marriage, what makes me think she will be able to within marriage?

And the same goes for women. If their boyfriend demands sex before they are married, what makes them think that this person will be able to exhibit self control once they are married?

I find it ironic that men who demand sex of their girlfriend before marriage are the same men who lament the lack of sex within marriage.

-Tim-

Having premarital sex with one person within a relationship, especially with someone who you think you will marry, although sinful, does not automatically make you open to having sex with multiple partners while in a relationship.