Annulments

[MichaelFilo]

Thank you, but assume the high court gets it wrong. After all, it can. What happens then?

The individual is not culpable but the marriage is still intact? So, he remarries, but a married man cannot get remarried in the Church, legally, so his other marriage is invalid. Then the very term valid becomes nonsensical. It would have no real meaning, beyond some abstraction of the Church. The solution, seemingly, would be to give the power to the Church to actually declare something invalid regardless of the facts, and then it becomes a divorce court with tight rules. The sheer number does indeed say something, though. Enough that the Roman Rota (The head tribunal, the mother of them all) has taken issue with it as has our current pope. It is not an abstract dilemma. The logical consequences of the ability of the Church to actually declare something valid seem to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Where on the one hand, if it has the power to end a valid marriage because of an incorrect conclusion, then it is a a divorce court. If it does not have the power, then it is an investigative body and it's declaration says nothing about validity, but the married couple may act as if their marriage is invalid. Validity would be reduced to some abstraction.


Some of the rules:
1095. They are incapable of contracting marriage:
(1) who lack the sufficient use of reason;
(2) who suffer from grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties which are to be mutually given and accepted;
(3) who are not capable of assuming the essential obligations of matrimony due to causes of a psychic nature.

Canon 1096
1. For matrimonial consent to be valid it is necessary that the contracting parties at least not be ignorant that marriage is a permanent consortium between a man and a woman which is ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
2. Such ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

Puberty is defined in this canon

Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

§2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.

[CatholicCid]

[i]Thank you, but assume the high court gets it wrong. After all, it can. What happens then? [/i]
[color="#FF0000"]We trust in the Church. As to the Rota making a mistake, it is possible, but I am not sure if it ever has. There is good reason why such cases are so thoroughly vetted before even reaching the Rota. Due to the seriousness of the situation, they want to avoid mistakes at all cost.[/color]

[i]The individual is not culpable but the marriage is still intact? So, he remarries, but a married man cannot get remarried in the Church, legally, so his other marriage is invalid. [/i]
[color="#FF0000"]Correct, a remarriage would not be possible if he was already validly married. If he was acting out of ignorance of his valid marriage and fully trusting in the decree of annulment, than he would not be culpable of adultery. While it might seem to be a valid marriage, objectively it would not be.[/color]

[i]Then the very term valid becomes nonsensical. It would have no real meaning, beyond some abstraction of the Church. [/i]
[color="#FF0000"]I fail to see how it becomes nonsensical or abstract. It would hold the same meaning as it always has. A valid marriage is one where the sacrament of marriage has actually taken place.[/color]

[i]The solution, seemingly, would be to give the power to the Church to actually declare something invalid regardless of the facts, and then it becomes a divorce court with tight rules. [/i]
[color="#FF0000"]I do not think that is the solution, nor do I believe that is even possible. Again, an annulment is not a divorce. The process determines if there was a valid marriage. A divorce, in legal concepts, would dissolve a valid marriage. The Tribunal does not hold the capacity to end a valid marriage.[/color]

[i]The sheer number does indeed say something, though. Enough that the Roman Rota (The head tribunal, the mother of them all) has taken issue with it as has our current pope. It is not an abstract dilemma. [/i]
[color="#FF0000"]I did not mean to show it as abstract. We are, however, discussing hypotheticals at this time.[/color]


[i]The logical consequences of the ability of the Church to actually declare something valid seem to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Where on the one hand, if it has the power to end a valid marriage because of an incorrect conclusion, then it is a a divorce court. [/i]
[color="#FF0000"]Thankfully, it does not hold such power.[/color]

[i]If it does not have the power, then it is an investigative body and it's declaration says nothing about validity, but the married couple may act as if their marriage is invalid. Validity would be reduced to some abstraction.[/i]
[color="#FF0000"]It is an investigative body. It's declaration will determine whether or not a marriage is [b]viewed[/b] as valid by the Church. We then act in both trust and obedience to the declaration. If a tribunal declares a marriage to be valid, then we believe that the couple is validly married. If the tribunal declares an annulment and states that, to its knowledge, no marriage had existed between a couple, then we trust that there was never a valid marriage.[/color]

[u]These are, again, my own personal opinions on the matter.[/u] One thing that does keep popping up in my mind is the saying that the Church are bound by the Sacraments, God is not. If a tragic error was made in an annulment, a man might be living invincibly ignorant in an invalid marriage, but God could still offer grace to the couple to help bring each other to Himself.

Edited October 19, 2010 by CatholicCid

[MichaelFilo]

The whole notion of a valid marriage is that it is a marriage blessed by God. It would be weird to separate God's blessings from validity, because then what does validity mean, if anything at all?

Even the Rota can make mistakes, and it is little wonder to me that people in Rome could make mistakes about people in the states. Even then, the sheer number of annulments must imply that there has been a laxity in the definition or qualification of our understanding of the canonical law without a subsequent change in the actual law. Furthermore, even by Catherine's admission, we grant people annulments based on a definition of maturity that is loose enough to accommodate so many annulments a year. Rome obviously disagrees and we must concede that Rome knows best (how does a nation with so few Catholics, proportionally, represent such a large percentage of the total annulments?) So, we still are faced with the dilemma.

Let us assume that it is a purely investigative body, one that does not declare something invalid which is valid or the other way around, but rather only makes a comment on the Church's view of validity. Then, you claim that culpability is dependent on the Church's telling you of your marriage position, and that could be true. But there are a slew of things that depend on the Church's position, like whether you can get remarried, your eligibility for priesthood in the West, and your eligibility for entrance into religious life. What results, as you will see, is that the Church's view becomes more important than the validity and validity loses it's meanings. If, in your Catholic life, all that matter is how the Church views your position, then true validity is meaningless.

I do concede, however, that as an investigative body, the Church's tribunals are no divorce court, but they do render objective validity secondary to the Church's view on the validity. That has all the practical effect of making the only concern for Catholics to be the Church's view on the matter and not actual validity. What is implied in that is that validity does not matter but rather what the Church declares.. which returns you to the original proposition that it has de facto powers of divorce if validity is made secondary to it's rulings.

The Church is not protected from error in this process like it is in it's teachings, which is where the problem comes in. I understand, for the individual, culpability is removed, but that says very little about the powers of the tribunal when it is wrong.


The last option would be to say that the tribunal is invalidated by reality, despite best efforts, and that a validly married person could not enter into another marriage regardless of the Church's view on the validity of the marriage and if he did so he would be committing adultery, as would his spouse, even if they are not culpable.

[CatherineM]

The main reason in my opinion that annulments have increased is due to poor catechesis. You can't make a valid marriage if you have never been taught what a real marriage is supposed to be, if you have never seen a real marriage in those around you.

The argument that the church should basically never grant an annulment because they might make a mistake is a bit extreme for me. I have faith that the Holy Spirit will guide us not to make mistakes where faith and morals are concerned, and I certainly believe marriage falls in that slot. If a mistake is made, I trust in God's mercy.

[MichaelFilo]

Unfortunately, the Holy Spirit's protection ends with the teaching authority of the Church. I don't mean to say it should never render one invalid, but the fact that it is possible to make mistakes and what those mistakes implies.. well, they seem to offer a little wrench in the Catholic argument, at least for me, for now. Nothing to lose my faith over, but Cid offered an awesome answer, the only problem is I'm not sure what the Church believes. If the church has the power to actually declare a valid marriage invalid, as you say Catherine, then we have divorce in the Catholic Church, so I am a little hesitant to accept that.

[CatholicCid]

[i]What results, as you will see, is that the Church's view becomes more important than the validity and validity loses it's meanings. If, in your Catholic life, all that matter is how the Church views your position, then true validity is meaningless. [/i]
[color="#FF0000"]What the Church is desiring to do through such tribunals is to determine the validity of marriage. That is why such processes [b]must[/b] be approached with complete honesty. You seem to be hitting right around the nail, so close! The Church, through tribunals, desires that her opinion be the exact same of the true objectivity reality. In these cases, you do rely on how the Church views your opinion, but you trust that the Church views it correctly. If the Church decrees that a marriage is valid, you are able to trust that the correct, objective reality of that marriage is valid. As CatherineM said, we trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in this matter. But, yes, we are a Church staffed by sinful man, and man can fall into error. But, as previously noted, the Church strives beyond belief to avoid error.[/color]

[i]I do concede, however, that as an investigative body, the Church's tribunals are no divorce court, but they do render objective validity secondary to the Church's view on the validity. That has all the practical effect of making the only concern for Catholics to be the Church's view on the matter and not actual validity. What is implied in that is that validity does not matter but rather what the Church declares.. which returns you to the original proposition that it has de facto powers of divorce if validity is made secondary to it's rulings.[/i]
[color="#FF0000"]Again, we hope and pray that the Church's view on the matter is the same as the actual validity. The desire is that the validity is not secondary to the ruling, but one and the same. That said, I do not mean that the tribunal can dissolve a valid marriage, but that it truly strives to determine the actual validity of the marriage and will offer a ruling to the best of its knowledge.[/color]

[i]The Church is not protected from error in this process like it is in it's teachings, which is where the problem comes in. I understand, for the individual, culpability is removed, but that says very little about the powers of the tribunal when it is wrong.[/i]
[color="#FF0000"]The Church is protected from error in matters of faith and morals. I do not know how this would apply here. Annulments involve the Sacrament of Marriage, which is an issue of faith. How the Church might be guided in this particular area, I am not sure. This falls beyond my current understanding.
As to the powers of a tribunal in error, I revert back to the position that the tribunal cannot dissolve a valid marriage by errantly claiming it an invalid marriage. To quote from the Catechism, "The marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved... The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom" (CCC 1640).[/color]

[i]The last option would be to say that the tribunal is invalidated by reality, despite best efforts, and that a validly married person could not enter into another marriage regardless of the Church's view on the validity of the marriage and if he did so he would be committing adultery, as would his spouse, even if they are not culpable.[/i]
[color="#FF0000"] As I said earlier, a validly married person cannot enter into another marriage. If he attempts to do so, it would be an invalid attempt. If there is an error due to a tribunal, and a man believes himself free to marry in the Church when he is not, he can attempt to do so, but it will still not be a valid marriage. The man has an impediment to the new 'marriage', which is his previous, valid marriage. He would be living in an adulterous relationship. That being said, due to his invincible ignorance toward the situation, the man would not be culpable to the sin being committed. That does not mean that the new 'marriage' becomes valid or acceptable, but that he is not able to be held accountable for the sin since he does not know he is committing it.

I also agree with CatherineM on this situation. I think rejecting the idea of a tribunal altogether is a bit extreme. First of all, because the Church does allow and have such tribunals. Secondly, because of the caution the Church goes to in such matters. Thirdly, because I trust in God's mercy as well in this matter.[/color]


Again, this is all my own foolish opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt. If I've made any error, I would appreciate correction.

I'm happy that I was able to help a little Michael, and hope I did so correctly. As to the Church's ability in marriage, I would recommend the section of the Catechism I quoted if you would like some better insight than I can offer.

Edited October 19, 2010 by CatholicCid

[MithLuin]

One could always not get an annulment, nor date/marry a person who has gotten an annulment if one is concerned about the process. Take a 'better safe than sorry' approach if you are worried about.

Canon law is very pastoral...it is meant to bring everyone into the Church and into right relationship with God. It is not written to encourage people to remain outside the fold.

[MichaelFilo]

I have no interest in throwing out the tribunal altogether.

However, the assurance you have of the Church being infallible in faith and morals is limited only to her teaching authority. The tribunals are not part of her teaching arm.

The entire premise, for you, is that the Church will always try to get the truth. I do not doubt that and it is the only institution which rivals and exceeds our founding father's due diligence in setting up a system to find truth, of checks and balances. However, mistakes can happen. At 59,000 annulments a year it is hard to imagine not even one a year is errant, even without people telling a lie. It is a judgement call about maturity, as Catherine has pointed out, that maybe checked by a few people but ultimately our definition of proper maturity is hardly in line with the canonical dictate. So, we do have a real dilemma of when the Church gets it wrong.


It isn't a personal worry, it's an intellectual gap. How do you defend marriage when anyone can say there are so many divorces a year in the Catholic Church and you call them funny names. I would be intellectually dishonest to believe that all of them are done within the definition of an annulment. If they are all truly annulments then the church should hide her face in shame and Catholic marriages would seemingly suffer from a painful case of invalidity.

Edited October 19, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[Deacon Joe]

I don't believe it's the Tribunal's power but God's that actually grants a Declaration of Nullity. God is totally just and so honest mistakes, as far as I know, would not be held against one just as sins committed unknowingly or unwittingly are not held against a person. I'm not sure what you're after here. One of the major differences between a Declaration of Nullity and a divorce is that in the Declaration an impediment must be found at the time the marriage was contracted whereas a divorce is normally granted by the state at any time for any reason that may come up for the entire duration of the marriage. A Declaration of Nullity says there was never a valid marriage and a divorce says there was a valid marriage but we, the state are dissolving it, which is impossible. The Tribunal never makes a marriage invalid, the circumstances around the marriage make it invalid. The Tribunal just verifies it w/ the information they have. I'm sure mistakes are made but that doesn't change the function of the Tribunal.

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287461943' post='2180611']
Understandable,but it doesn't have to be a case of lying. What about honest error? Does the tribunal have actual power to make a marriage invalid, as opposed to simply declare it. If it does, it is a divorce court with stylized rules.

Don't assume the lying scenario, assume a genuine mistake.
[/quote]

[MichaelFilo]

Well, we understand that culpability is not important, because God will forgive you for something you believed to be true.

Well, mistakes do change the function. For instance, if the tribunal is purely investigative then it can be wrong on the facts or the conclusion, and if so then it could say something is invalid which is valid. The problem is multiplied when you understand the sheer volume of Catholics out there with annulments today vs any time in Church history. Can the tribunals really be at a point today where so many more people, nearly 100 times as many, without making errors. If they are being lax about the standards of maturity then they are declaring things invalid which are valid. If that is the case then many people who believe their marriage was never valid, well, was. If it is not an issue because they do not know better then we are faced with a problem, that the validity of the marriages is not really the issue but rather the declaration of the tribunal.

Furthermore, if today the pope saw that this cannot go on, he could ask for the tribunals to relook into previous declarations. Could they then say there was a mistake, that they were too lax, and the marriages were indeed valid?

I mean, here is the real issue. Today, to get married in the Church, you must undergo some level of classes or meetings or preparation with a priest. How many priests are just failing so horribly that this canon "For matrimonial consent to be valid it is necessary that the contracting parties at least not be ignorant that marriage is a permanent consortium between a man and a woman which is ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." is not being met. The very next line says "2. Such ignorance is not presumed after puberty" should indicate how lax the actual implementation is. how can 59,000 Catholic couples a year not know these things? You don't even have to be Catholic to know them. So we have a dilemma, because it boggles the mind how in actuality so many more marriages are invalidly done today then in the past.

My concern, then lies, in the fact that validity doesn't matter as long as the tribunal says it is so. If that is the case then how can I stand as a Catholic and say divorce is wrong when God has brought two parties together when the Church in the states has decided that quite a large percentage of those getting married aren't capable of even that base knowledge? It seems like a cop-out because it is one. I mean, 97% of all annulments being granted should be an indicator of either the poor efforts of the tribunals or the absolute mental incapacity of Catholic couples and priests.

[CatherineM]

It is the incapacity of couples, the inadequacy of most diocesan marriage prep courses, and the desire of priests to not offend people.

We did our marriage prep 5 years ago. It was done quickly over a weekend. It was run by lay people who were trained in Kumbya theology. There was no NFP training, no marriage chastity discussion at all. There was no clergy involvement at all, except for a small talk by a brother who is the Medieval history professor at the seminary. The preparation our priest gave us involved filling out a form, sending us to a Catholic psychologist to make sure we were both competent to marry in the church, and nothing else.

I think there were just as many invalid marriages 100 years ago with people being forced into marriage, not knowing what marriage involved, etc. The difference was that culturally, people simply didn't divorce then.

Right now, I think valid marriages are the exception. Most people are just clueless. When you find a truly sacramental marriage, it is that one that everyone in church looks at and just marvels at.

[MichaelFilo]

There is a problem with the idea that a truly sacramental marriage is successful. In fact, sacraments require consent for effectiveness. It seems the requirements for validity are simply knowledge of what marriage is, namely that it is between a man and a woman for life and it involves sex. Did you get that many people who did not know that?

The other issue is why isn't all of Europe like the US. We still account for some way too large portion of the annulments. One would expect France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Germany, etc to have the same problems. They have comparable divorce rates in those countries.

[MithLuin]

Well, perhaps the people in those countries don't bother applying for annulments when they get divorced? To know that, you'd need to look at the number of people who [i]apply[/i] for an annulment, and then compare it to the number granted....and then compare percentages to the US.

It's quite possible the US would still come out with a higher percentage, but I don't know the numbers.

You have stated that you don't want to get rid of the tribunal, so you do recognize that there are cases where a sacramental marriage does not exist and it would be the role of the tribunal to declare that truth. So is your only complaint that too many people get annulments?

[MichaelFilo]

While looking online, the US has moved up to 80% of all annulments in the world by 1995.

My question is what happens when the tribunal gets it wrong. We obviously have the laxest standards in the world. If they are purely an investigative body, but Catherine who worked for one says they are a body with a legitimate ability to render marriages invalid, then they are telling people out and out lies. They are declaring valid marriages invalid by the thousands each year. The net effect, of course, is that no one is responsible for their conclusion and so no one is punished. Then, we have a dilemma, because we have a body that has the ability to render you inculpable for a marriage that is valid. What they are granting, de facto, is divorces.This is the problem. No one here would rightly argue that the Holy Spirit's protections over the teaching arm could extend to this realm because we are a huge anomaly in regards to the rest of the world. So, we are left with the fact that we are so lax an annulment, for all practical purposes, is a divorce.

Why? Well, we have very strict and low ball standards for what ability to get married is. In fact, all of it is assumed knowledge by puberty. When you have a tribunal declaring that 59,000 couples a year do not know what is known generally at puberty then you have a body that is nullifying, in ever practical sense, valid marriages, or at least telling laypeople to treat it that way. That is what a divorce does. It treats a valid marriage as invalid.

You may argue that it renders a valid marriage as dissolved, but not quite. A valid Catholic marriage is rendered dissolved in a non-Catholic court by the court.For the Catholic, who knows no such thing can be done, all they are doing is rendering his valid marriage invalid, even though it is not the case.

If we truly had 59,000 couples getting invalidly married then there are serious implications on our intelligence and ability to grasp basic concepts, or the state of the Church that she cannot teach that marriage is for life, between a man and a woman, and is procreative.

[CatherineM]

Perhaps you should pursue a law degree and a JCD so that you can become a Defender of the Bond, and turn down every single application.