Hello! This is my first time posting, though I've been reading others' posts here for sometime. I hope someone with experience in the annulment procedure can help me!

I'm a practicing Catholic, a widow with two children. Earlier this year I met a wonderful man, a divorced Lutheran with one child by his ex-wife. Both of us are seeking a new spouse, though I warned Andrew when we met that I would not consider becoming involved with anyone whom I could not marry in the Church. He indicated that he would be willing to seek an annulment if his potential new partner desired it. On that basis we began to get to know one another, although we have not become physically intimate. We've always agreed that, even if one of both of us decided the other was not the right person, we would at least have formed a valuable friendship.

Having said all this, he recently talked to me, very candidly, about the reasons behind the "failure" of his first marriage. He had been separated from his ex-wife for over 5 years & has not been intimate with her for over 7. Although they were married in a Lutheran ceremony & she had been baptized as a child, she is and was at the time of their marriage an avowed atheist and has also since persuaded their 11-year-old son to be an atheist. This has caused Andrew great sorrow.

He told me that at the time he married his wife, he did so with very strong reservations. He loved her as a dear friend, but not in the way that a husband ought to love a wife. When I asked him why he married her, he replied that he had done so out of guilt & social pressure. They had been dating off & on for 8 years, they were in their 30s and, although he never asked her to marry him, she apparently assumed that that would be the result. He said that he discovered one day that she'd told her family they were engaged (although he hadn't given her a ring, much less made a proposal) & had begun to make wedding preparations. He said that he'd want to stop her, but that he'd wrestled with the fact that doing so were hurt her & finally concluded that he "owed" it to her to at least try, telling himself that if he couldn't make it work, he could at seek a divorce in the future.

To his credit, he blames himself for going through with the wedding despite his deep reservations & acknowledges that, in the long run, he did his ex-wife a disservice in doing so because, as he said to me the another night, "no marriage in which both parties are not committed to the relationship can succeed." He acknowledges that he was the person who was never committed to the relationship. He's also indicated that 16 years after making such an error in judgment & after 5 years of being separated, he would never marry again unless he was fully committed to the relationship (for life).

My question for the forum is whether the fact that his ex-wife was & is an atheist would be adequate grounds for seeking an annulment. Although I suspect that Andrew's lack of commitment at the time of the wedding would constitute grounds, he'd prefer not to state that if that information would be communicated to his ex-wife, as I believe it would be. He tells me that he's never admitted that fact to her, because he feels that it would just cause her unnecessary distress because she is insecure about her attractiveness. On the other hand, if her atheism were disclosed as the ground for the annulment petition, he does not feel that that would cause her any distress.

I should add that Andrew has endeavored to maintain cordial, friendly relations with his ex-wife, & that he is deeply committed to his son. He continues to try to persuade his son that God exists (and loves him). Last -- if you have a sense of this -- would Andrew's lack of commitment in entering into marriage with his ex-wife likely result in a notation of "monitum," assuming the annulment were granted?

Many thanks!!

-- Charlotte (Charlotte6201964@hotmail.com), August 06, 2003

Answers

Dear Charlotte,

Seeking a writ of nullity is a serious action, and it makes no sense to start the process with the intent of withholding pertinent information. That would be like telling your doctor one of your symptoms while hiding other symptoms, and yet hoping he can accurately diagnose your illness. The information Andrew provides to the tribunal will be confidential. It will not be passed on to his wife, and any information she provides (if she chooses to provide any) will not be passed along to him. It is not like a court trial, where all presented evidence is heard by all.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 06, 2003.

Thanks for posting a reply, Paul, but I respectfully disagree, especially with your analogy to a visit to a doctor. In cases where there may be multiple grounds for annulment, every diocesan website that I've looked at has indicated that there is "no need" to state in an application all the reasons why a marriage might be void if a single ground, such as lack of canonical form, is clearly sufficient.

Moreover, your comparison of grounds to symptoms fails because each ground must be evaluated individually, unlike symptoms of a disease, which must be evaluated in the aggregate in order to determine which disease is indicated. If you had been talking about all the pertinent information for a ground, I would have agreed with you.

Second, I never said that Andrew intended to "withhold pertinent information"; he's prepared to be perfectly & fully candid with the Tribunal. But if his ex-wife's atheism would be a sufficient basis (meaning "ground") for a declaration of nullity, say, under Petrine Privilege, it would be quite unnecessary for him to state as an additional reason for seeking the annulment his lack of commitment to to the marriage at the time it took place, thereby sparing his ex- wife any unnecessary pain.

You see, your statement "The information Andrew provides to the tribunal will be confidential. It will not be passed on to his wife, and any information she provides (if she chooses to provide any) will not be passed along to him." is quite wrong, insofar as it applies to the stated ground(s) in the application -- which is what my question was about. The respondent is ALWAYS informed of the BASIS on which the petitioner has sought the annulment, even if not all the details (i.e., the "pertinent information") are supplied.

From the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's Metropolitan Tribunal website (http://home.netcom.com/~adphltrb/web5.html):

"4. The other party of the marriage (Respondent) must then be formally notified that the case is in process and THE BASIS FOR THE CASE. The Respondent must be given the opportunity to participate." (emphasis supplied)

With this distinction (and information) in mind, perhaps my question is now more understandable to you.

-- Charlotte (charlotte6201964@hotmail.com), August 06, 2003.

I certainly agree that in a case where a specific factor, standing alone, constitutes absolute grounds for annulment (such as a previous valid marriage) there is no need to reveal other contributing factors. However, in a case where there are multiple factors, no one of which constitutes absolute grounds for annulment - which seemed to be the kind of situation you were describing - it would only be prudent to reveal all possible factors, lest you discover too late that the one you decided to reveal was not deemed just cause for annulment.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 06, 2003.

Charlotte,

In a typical diocese, the respondent will be allowed to read the statements from the petitioner and the witnesses, but will not be allowed to make or keep a copy of them. For a specific example, please take a look at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CatholicsRemarry/message/1101.

Catholic sacramental theology holds that baptism leaves an indelible character, regardless of any future loss of faith, so that means that a dissolution (FYI, different than an annulment) via the Petrine Privilege would not apply.

Assuming that Andrew knew about his ex-wife's atheism at the time of their marriage, this would not be grounds for annulment. If she kept this (or any other secret of this magnitude), it could very possible be grounds.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), August 06, 2003.