Why is "no hope of reconciliation" a required condition for annulment

[inthedark]

I understand presumption in the favor of the marriage. But I don’t understand how any subsequent effort on the part of one or both of the spouses affects what conditions were or were not present at the time that marriage was attempted. Why cannot a person get a ruling on the truth of his or situation without potentially exhausting her/himself (particularly if s/he has been making an unreciprocated good-faith effort to make things work for years, and/or if there has been unrelenting abuse)?

I also don’t understand how “doing everything one can to make things work” before discovering there is “no hope” and then divorcing is a process that makes either of the partners more open to subsequently marrying (for the first time). Why would an annulment suddenly create hope where there was none before? (Sorry if this sounds like an absurd rationale on its face, not worthy of debunking; it was offered to me by a so-called expert on the subject.) Also, how could one ever prove that there was “no hope” of making things work? There would have to be a known, finite set of possible actions one could take, and then one could demonstrate that one had taken those actions, and therefore no further action could be taken. But what are the members of this finite set?

To me, for someone to try to mount a theological defense for requiring civil divorce before annulment, when many countries grant annulments civil effect (making a subsequent civil divorce unnecessary), is like trying to find a theological justification for why kids shouldn’t be confirmed before adolescence, when for centuries the Church confirmed children at the age of reason. It would seem more honest to simply say, as Ed Peters has said, “the Church doesn’t want to get sued in civil court by anyone for alienation of affection” (i.e., “Hey, the Church told my husband he’s not married to me,” says angry uncooperative respondent to the petition; “The hell he’s not,” says the US, which doesn’t grant civil effect to Church annulments).

Would appreciate any deeper insight into the matter, however.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I might be mistaken but if a couple was “invalidly married” but wanted to remain together then can’t they “normalize” the relationship with the Church? So maybe it has something to do with that.

I think it would be like most things and “within reason” so they don’t need God to come down and explain every possible eventuality but just, if a reasonable person can reasonably say there is no hope for reconciliation.

 

[LilyM]

I might be mistaken but if a couple was “invalidly married” but wanted to remain together then can’t they “normalize” the relationship with the Church? So maybe it has something to do with that.

I think it would be like most things and “within reason” so they don’t need God to come down and explain every possible eventuality but just, if a reasonable person can reasonably say there is no hope for reconciliation.

At least some couples may, if they reconcile, be able (and encouraged) to have their union validated in the Church. Too many annulments followed by reconciliations and remarriages undermines the very serious nature of.the process of annulment.

 

[Greenfields]

Does that happen very often?

 

[AdamP88]

I might be mistaken but if a couple was “invalidly married” but wanted to remain together then can’t they “normalize” the relationship with the Church? So maybe it has something to do with that.

I think it would be like most things and “within reason” so they don’t need God to come down and explain every possible eventuality but just, if a reasonable person can reasonably say there is no hope for reconciliation.

That makes sense. There might have been a factor that was the fault of neither person. The Church might perfer to regularise the marriage ove an annulment.

That said, if the marriage is invalid, then it shouldn’t matter whether or not there is hope of reconciliation or otherwise.

 

[1ke]

I understand presumption in the favor of the marriage. But I don’t understand how any subsequent effort on the part of one or both of the spouses affects what conditions were or were not present at the time that marriage was attempted.

A couple in an invalid marriage can convalidate the marriage either through private consent or public consent (depending on circumstances). So, the goal in such a case is that the couple would indeed reconcile AND that any impediment or defect would be overcome and the marriage convalidated.

 

[Vonsalza]

To the question in the thread title -

Because marriage is a sacrament, arguably the first one established by God.

It is not a casual thing to be lightly entered into and it should not be something set aside before extending maximum effort to attempt to salvage it - like Christ extended the maximum effort to salvage us.

In some ways, it mirrors the relationship we have with God. Sometimes it goes great and we’re really honoring the Lord with our lives. Sometimes it doesn’t go great and we’re being unfaithful to God through our life choices.

In that way, since God doesn’t decide to “give up” on us, we are not to give up on our marriage.

 

[MichaelP3]

In some ways, it mirrors the relationship we have with God. Sometimes it goes great and we’re really honoring the Lord with our lives. Sometimes it doesn’t go great and we’re being unfaithful to God through our life choices.

In that way, since God doesn’t decide to “give up” on us, we are not to give up on our marriage.

Hi V

I agree wholeheartedly with that part but I’m wondering if that actually answers the question in the title. An annulment proves the marriage was never valid. So how can trying to reconcile if an annulments would be successful? That sounds like trying to make it valid then afterwards?

I am not saying not trying to reconcile would make it invalid? But whether its valid or not has nothing to do with reconciling or not.

Also is that for certain a condition?

Regards

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

In some ways, it mirrors the relationship we have with God. Sometimes it goes great and we’re really honoring the Lord with our lives. Sometimes it doesn’t go great and we’re being unfaithful to God through our life choices.

In that way, since God doesn’t decide to “give up” on us, we are not to give up on our marriage.

Hi V

I agree wholeheartedly with that part but I’m wondering if that actually answers the question in the title. An annulment proves the marriage was never valid. So how can trying to reconcile if an annulments would be successful? That sounds like trying to make it valid then afterwards?

I am not saying not trying to reconcile would make it invalid? But whether its valid or not has nothing to do with reconciling or not.

Also is that for certain a condition?

Regards

Quite right.

I have the unfortunate habit of thinking that most “annulments” aren’t really annulments, but de facto church-permitted divorces that are layered in the charitable (some would say heretical, depending on the case) language of annulment that allows the folks to carry on with their lives in a practical way.

As such, I probably shouldn’t have opined due to my biases.

Carry on, folks!

 

[MichaelP3]

I have the unfortunate habit of thinking that most “annulments” aren’t really annulments, but de facto church-permitted divorces that are layered in the charitable (some would say heretical, depending on the case) language of annulment that allows the folks to carry on with their lives in a practical way.

You have a lot of guts on here regarding certain topics

But hey, I just thought it, you actually said it!

Regards

 

[inthedark]

Hi MichaelP3:

Yes, it is a condition, insofar as it is a condition for divorce, which is a condition for petitioning for an annulment.

In other words, it looks like the (US) Church reasoning is: Don’t approach for annulment unless you’ve tried everything to make the marriage work, the proof of the impossibility of which is your divorce.

But the reasoning seems flawed in two ways:

1. A couple could be going along just fine and their “marriage” could still be invalid (does it not really matter to the Church as long as everything’s “stable”? In the case of psychological incompetence, e.g., PDs, one spouse/parent could be going under as they are keeping things appearing “stable”);
2. Divorce, especially in a culture of no-fault divorce, doesn’t prove anything about how “hopeless” the situation is. People could just be in a rush to split, gotten their divorce, and now are here to waste the Church’s time to ease their consciences. (On this last point, does anyone know of anyone who got divorced and then the Church said, “Mmmm no, you’re married, still”?)

And this is all on top of the problem of “What does what we’re doing now have to do with what was (or wasn’t) the case then.” In other words, we might be getting along great right now, we might be at each others’ throats now, we might be somewhere in between, but that doesn’t change that we’re not actually married. In my original post I suggested that the Church’s response to this might be: Well, if you tried to reconcile before your divorce, maybe you’ll be open to making it work and getting married after the annulment (for the first time). In other words, from hope to no hope to hope because…we weren’t married?

To everybody: Please let’s not talk about un-real cases in which a couple is there before the tribunal, getting along fine, but have detected something that may mean they’re (objectively) not in good standing with the Church. That’s not why a person (or persons) in a couple approach a tribunal (they approach a priest in that case). You go before the court because you feel something is deeply wrong. As in so bad they think your house may be built on sand. Indeed, the (US) Church’s own “no hope of reconciliation” (i.e., divorce) threshold presumes such a state of emergency.

 

[MichaelP3]

(On this last point, does anyone know of anyone who got divorced and then the Church said, “Mmmm no, you’re married, still”?)

On this point. I do not know many Catholics and none who tried even for an annulment but that point seems interesting. I have read many annulment posts on CAF but never commented as those seemed more personal and it wasn’t my place. The interesting thing is that I don’t remember even one where it wasn’t eventually granted. Rather that it just took too long or some other administration issue.

 

[Vonsalza]

inthedark:

(On this last point, does anyone know of anyone who got divorced and then the Church said, “Mmmm no, you’re married, still”?)

On this point. I do not know many Catholics and none who tried even for an annulment but that point seems interesting. I have read many annulment posts on CAF but never commented as those seemed more personal and it wasn’t my place. The interesting thing is that I don’t remember even one where it wasn’t eventually granted. Rather that it just took too long or some other administration issue.

Read up on American politician Newt Gingrich. He’s gotten 2 or 3, I think.

 

[Jerusha]

There is a pre-screening process through which the initial contact person tells the applicant that an annulment is possible, or, alternatively, that it is not worth the effort.

 

[MichaelP3]

Is this a solid no then or are the people still allowed to approach it? If you have a couple with emotions going I can’t imagine if they really still want to, that they won’t attempt it.

Do you know of any who got rejected by this and didn’t approach it? Is a civil divorce needed for this or can it be done before. Otherwise I am thinking you are already divorced, lets go ahead?

 

[inthedark]

When you say “not worth the effort,” you mean that the “initial contact person” advises the applicant that there is likely no grounds? Are you talking about a (diocesan) advocate who advises an applicant (post-interview) as to whether you have a case before going through with the petition and collecting witnesses? Because I ended up hiring a lay advocate to assess my case because my diocese would not even respond to my request for a diocesan advocate (they just said “you have to be divorced”). This made me sad because I don’t want to put my children through a divorce without any sense of how my case is going to be judged.

 

[inthedark]

Do you know of any who got rejected by this and didn’t approach it? Is a civil divorce needed for this or can it be done before. Otherwise I am thinking you are already divorced, lets go ahead?

This is what I’m talking about. If you’re divorced, there we go, proof positive there’s no hope of reconciling, let’s see if you were ever married. When divorce is no proof that everything’s been tried, and whether or not everything’s been tried is irrelevant to the original condition, so why is that even a bar to clear. It’s US Church nonsense, which wouldn’t exist if we were a concordat nation and annulments had civil effect.

 

[Jerusha]

Yes. But you have to be divorced before the diocesan advocate will talk with you. Again, “alienation of affection” is the stated reason. After all, people, like my ex, can civilly re-marry an ex.

I suppose people can apply, even if the process is hopeless. I doubt that money and power play a part these days.

My situation was abusive, and the children were suffering. So if the children are not adversely affected, I am wondering if the situation is serious enough to be a matter for divorce or annulment.

 

[inthedark]

Too many annulments followed by reconciliations and remarriages undermines the very serious nature of.the process of annulment.

This does seem like a strange argument to me, not only because it seems like a pink elephant, but because it really doesn’t it seem like it should bother the Church how many times it hands down the truth about whether or not this or that marriage is valid, whatever happens before or after. Not on a theological level. Pastorally, it might be a wildly impractical case-load if persons are getting divorced willy-nilly then looking to ease their consciences. But then, why not staff more dioceses with more advocates to pre-screen cases before they reach tribunal?

 

[otjm]

According to CARA, 7% of people who are divorced have applied for and received a decree of nullity. according to the same research, 8% of people who are divorced did not receive one; and as I understand that, it includes people divorced who spoke with a pastor or other individual involved with applying for one, those who started the paperwork and quit; those who submitted paperwork and did not proceed further, up to those who had a trial and/or had the second “review” and did not receive one.

That leaves 85% of Catholics who have divorced and have not even begun the process.

CARA is the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate and does research for the Church.