Annulments and the Catholic Church

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

[The following is "transplanted" from another thread that does not have a title which is related to this subject matter.]

Having read a reply by J. F. Gecik concerning marriage and divorce, I would like to ask:

How does the Catholic Church approach annulments? While I can understand sets of circumstances wherein a newly married Catholic discovers something about their spouse after the ceremony as to warrant declaring the marriage vows as null and void, I am very confused as to how the Church authorizes annulments for couples with children who've been married for many years. I personally know of several examples where annulments were granted after 15 and 20 years of marriage. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Thanks in advance for your response. God bless.

Dave

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 21, 2000

Answers

Hi, Dave.
(May the Holy Spirit grant me the grace to answer this clearly and correctly. Amen.)
Let us suppose that a baptized couple exchanges vows, entering what they and the witnesses believe is a marriage (a Sacrament to a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian), and consummates the union. Let us then suppose that the couple later suffer through the pain of a divorce. Can they "re-marry" someone else while both "ex-spouses" are still alive?

They can validly marry now, but only if the first "union" was not really a valid marriage. For a marriage to be valid, there must have been no obstacles (sometimes called impediments) and the engaged couple must have given each other valid consent. If one or both of the couple are Catholic, they must also have followed certain Church "disciplinary" rules concerning witnesses, spoken vows, and special permissions (sometimes required from the bishop). What matters is the state of circumstances at the beginning of the union.

If, after divorcing, either "ex-spouse" believes that the "union" was invalid, he/she may ask the Church to have a diocesan panel of experts (a Church court or "tribunal") carefully analyze all the facts, to hear and/or read evidence, and to make a judgment as to whether or not a valid sacramental marriage took place.

These specially educated experts (who may be a mixture of men and women or of clergy and laity) begin with a presumption of validity, but if the evidence overcomes this, they grant a "declaration of nullity." Their decision is automatically appealed to a second diocese (and then potentially to a higher Church court, if the two diocesan courts disagree). A declaration of nullity states that, in God's eyes, there was no valid sacramental marriage to begin with (although the secular government may refer to what happened as a "legal marriage").

It is possible for two people to procreate any number of children, regardless of whether they have been validly married, invalidly "joined," or never joined at all. But the presence of offspring is not relevant to a tribunal's decision, because those folks are looking only at the conditions that were in effect at the time the vows were taken. When a declaration of nullity is granted to a couple who have children, there is no question of "illegitimacy." The children are legitimate, because legitimacy is considered a secular, legal concept, something determined by the status of the couple in the eyes of the state, not in the eyes of the God.

Please notice that I earlier said that the tribunal may grant a "declaration of nullity." I (and a growing number of Catholics) try never to use the term "annulment," which is a secular term that can be misleading. In English, the suffix "-ment" takes on the connotation of "means or instrument of an action" -- as in procureMENT, empowerMENT, enlightenMENT, and developMENT. To use the non-ecclesiastical term "annulMENT" can fool people into believing that the Catholic Church claims the power to act as the "means or instrument" of ending an actual marriage. This in turn has led to the ignorant use of the words, "Aw, an annulment is just a Catholic divorce!" I hope that my explanation above has dispelled such thoughts from anyone who may have had them.

A couple of other notes ... The Church recognizes that, in certain cases, spouses can have good reasons to live separately (for example, due to physical abuse) and even to be divorced (for example, for child support to be arranged). While he/she is divorced (but not "remarried"), each Catholic ex-spouse is welcome to receive the sacraments of Penance, Anointing, and Holy Eucharist, and is encouraged to live as full a spiritual life as any other Catholic.

I believe that I should write something about "justifications" for a declaration of nullity. (I apologize if this gets a bit long.) The best thing for me to do is to quote part of what theologian, Colin Donovan, has written: "No power on earth can dissolve a ratified and consummated union of two baptized Christians ... A valid marriage requires the proper intention at the time that the vows are exchanged. The parties must intend to make a marriage, which by definition is a life-long communion open to new human life. ... If either of the two meanings of marriage (an indissoluble union and procreation) is excluded by the will of either the man or the woman, no marriage is made on the wedding day. For example, someone who has no intention of being faithful cannot make a marriage, since, at the very time of exchanging vows, he or she precludes the life-long fidelity that is intrinsic to marriage. This is often demonstrated [near the very beginning of the "union"] by infidelity. Or, someone who intends to exclude the possibility of children does not validly marry. (Those who cannot have children due to age or infertility are NOT meant here, but only those who could bear children, but intend to avoid this marital responsibility completely.) ... Another example [to justify a declaration of invalidity] would be that one of the parties was incapable of marriage (due to some constitutional weakness, such as mental illness or some psychological condition that prevented making the marital commitment - gross immaturity, homosexuality, etc.)."
[Without pretending to cover every possibility, I will add to Mr. Donovan's list the following evidence of nullity: (1) "marriage" entered unwillingly, but under pressure from the spouse or parents (due to pregnancy, to obtain the spouse's wealth, etc.); (2) "marriage" of one or two Catholics without the presence of ordained Catholic clergy and without the bishop's permission for this arrangement.]

God bless you.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 21, 2000.

Dear David, Your question is really a good one. As I understand it, a Catholic has no problems getting an annulment if certain issues are met. These are in the areas of alcoholism, abuse and insanity. If any of these issues are destroying a marriage, it can be annulled. My ex-husband is a baptised alcoholic who was extremely abusive and caused a lot of both physical and emotional abuse to my family. Even though we had 6 kids, the church had no problem annulling my marriage. If you think about it, it makes common sense. Another way to get an annullment is if you married an un-baptised person. As to the beginning of the marriage and the issue of intent, it gets a little hazy. It sounds real nice to say that when the intent to live up to a real marriage and to follow the marriage vows wasn't there in the beginning of the marriage it is ok to get it annulled. But how many of us get married with the intent to default? How many normal people, who later become alcoholic or abusive, have the intent to default at the beginning of the marriage? The Tribunal that did my annulment had to ask a lot of questions and had to hear the testimony of the witnesses who told them how my marriage had worked and what had to be endured in it and then they made their decision. In all honesty, I don't think my ex-husband "intended" to marry me so he could become an alcoholic and an abuser, it just happened. It was a very dangerous situation for both me and my kids. I think the word "intent" was more used in describing me and my vows. I honestly took them with the idea that we would be married forever. I followed what I vowed but he didn't. Therefore, since my intent was valid, I didn't have to be punished by being forced to remain married in the eyes of the church. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), February 21, 2000.

Thanks John and Ellen! I really appreciate your input. I've listened before as some Catholic friends have gone through the process, yet they themselves were very unfamiliar with the criteria and I was unable to point them in the right direction. Unfortunately, a few have concluded that a successful annullment (with my apologies for using the term) is contingent on a sufficiently large donation. While it is possible that some isolated corrupt individuals could be fleecing the flock, I knew there must also be a standard operating procedure used for all such cases that did not involve monetary recompense. Thanks again for filling in the blanks.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 21, 2000.

Someone turns into an alcoholic and wife abuser at some date long after the marriage took place and this is grounds for annulment? How so? On what grounds was it determined that there had never been a marriage from day one, which is what determines an annulment. I am puzzled.

-- Richard C. Trochlil (trochlilbb@neumedia.net), February 21, 2000.

Yes, Richard, I can understand your "puzzlement." It can be misleading to read just these words: "If alcoholism, abuse, or insanity is destroying a marriage, it can be annulled. "

If a marriage tribunal were to issue a declaration of nullity based simply on a finding that "alcoholism, abuse, or insanity" developed (from scratch) during the marriage, they would have failed in their duty. Those three misfortunes, if late in developing, would be justification for separation, even divorce, but would not be automatic justification for a declaration of nullity and subsequent "remarriage."

If you hear of a declaration of nullity in which "alcoholism, abuse, or insanity" are involved, you can assume one of three things:
1. the tribunal (fallible humans) and the appeals tribunal both failed -- more than extremely unlikely, or ...
2. evidence proved that the individual was already alcoholic, abusive, or insane on the day of the wedding, or ...
3. evidence proved that the person, on the day of the wedding, was psychologically incapable of giving valid consent, due to gross immaturity or some other factor(s), which later helped give rise to the alcoholism, abusiveness, or insanity.

Evidence is not taken in an open forum (as in a civil court), so it would be perfectly normal for the "innocent" party not to know what was revealed that persuaded the tribunal of #2 or #3, above.
I'm sure that it is difficult for a tribunal to assess facts and testimony to arrive at the kind of decision described at #3. The Vatican has asked tribunals to be very careful about this, so that no injustice is done.

God bless you. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 23, 2000.


I appreciate the quick response. However, somebody had better tighten down the bolts on this annulment process. Having people run around saying you can get an annulment because your husband started drinking and beating you 20 years into the marriage is not helpful. Neither are cases I have heard of where the wife woke up one day to find out she was in the middle of an annulment process and before she could figure out what was going on, it had gone through and hubby went off with his secretary. And to this day, the wife has no idea as to the basis of the annulment.

-- Richard C. Trochlil (trochlilbb@neumedia.net), March 02, 2000.

Thanks, Richard, for your follow-up.

You are right in saying that "somebody had better tighten down the bolts on this annulment process." There have been enough abuses alleged (and some proved) that the Vatican has been working behind the scenes -- with an occasional public statement, too -- to improve the education of the bishops and tribunal judges as to their duties under Canon Law.

As with any kind of abuse in human life -- whether in religious or secular matters -- a person can find shocking "anecdotal evidence," such as the cases you have given us. But we always have to be careful not to generalize, because that can lead to unjustified condemnation and even pessimism/despair (e.g., thinking that all U.S. dioceses are riddled with abuse and heresy). I have confidence that the nullity process is carried out properly in the vast majority of U.S. and worldwide diocese.

To comment on your specific statements:
"Having people run around saying you can get an annulment because your husband started drinking and beating you 20 years into the marriage is not helpful." [You are right. Pastors who help men and women through the process must better educate them to realize that such ideas are false.]
"Neither are cases I have heard of where the wife woke up one day to find out she was in the middle of an annulment process and before she could figure out what was going on, it had gone through and hubby went off with his secretary. And to this day, the wife has no idea as to the basis of the annulment." [This borders on the incredible. Perhaps she exaggerated to you. But, if all this is true, it represents extremely serious error. (1) Each party -- if he/she can be located by ordinary effort -- must be notified early -- probably before the tribunal begins to consider the case. (2) Each party deserves a full explanation of the process -- what nullity and a declaration thereof are, what are the justifications, what are the rights to give testimony, etc.. Your friend should not have had to "figure out what was going on." (3) Although I am not certain of this, I believe that each party has a right to know, at least in general terms, the basis for the tribunal's decision -- one way or another. If I am right, your friend should be able to request this information of the bishop's office (the Chancery).

Hang in there, Richard. Don't let it get you down.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), March 02, 2000.

Thanks for the quick response. As for the lady not knowing, I had the impression she had been given the reason for nullity but could not believe that was it, had to think that there was something else she was not told because the reason given could not possibly be correct. (I don't know what it was.) And she did not feel she had any opportunity to dispute it either. At least it was not my diocese. I am glad to hear somebody is looking into this sort of thing.

-- Richard C. Trochlil (trochlilbb@neumedia.net), March 02, 2000.

Just a few days ago, addressing the judges of the Roman Rota (the Vatican "Supreme Court"), the Pope told them not to issue declarations of nullity based on the presumption that the couple could have been influenced by secular thinking about marriage, thus not really accepting the doctrine of indissolubility of Matrimony. While rejecting this doctrine DOES lay ground for a null marriage, the Pope said that it cannot be presumed, i.e., a declaration of nullity on these grounds only can be issued if positive proof may be produced that the couple despised indissolubility as of the time of their marriage (e.g. documents where they declare this, people who witness that the couple routinely spoke about divorcing and remarrying if "things go wrong" etc.). There has been some abuses concerning this.

-- Atila Belloquim (atila@choose.com.br), March 03, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ