Marriage renewal

[CatherineM]

All of the talk about annulments and contraception made me think about marriage renewals.  I had this discussion with some of my canon law cronies. If a couple enters marriage with the idea that they will use contraception, that is grounds for annulment. If they later decide to come into line with Church teaching, that doesn't change the fact that when they married, they didn't truly understand the requirements of marriage.

If later during a midlife crisis one of them takes a younger spouse or becomes a compulsive gambler, and they divorce, they can easily obtain an annulment. What if after coming into line about contraception they had done a renewal of their marriage vows?  Would that prevent them from being able to obtain an annulment?

I attended a renewal once for a couple who'd had his vasectomy reversed. It was symbolic for them because he had it after they married so wouldn't have affected an annulment, but that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

Symbolic renewals of vows are always a nice gesture, but a renewal of vows in canonical form (i.e., in a "real" marriage ceremony) is only necessary if a defect of consent can be proven objectively. If the problem with consent was a more hidden thing---as I imagine it would likely be in most cases---then it's sufficient that the lacking consent be given "privately and in secret." (cf. can. 1159)

40 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

If a couple enters marriage with the idea that they will use contraception, that is grounds for annulment.

An intention to use contraception by itself isn't ground for a declaration of nullity. Contraception use only makes a marriage invalid if it's part of a general intention never to have children (and this ground for invalidity can also come about as a result of using NFP with a "contraceptive mentality.") Contraception is of course gravely sinful, but if a couple did intend to be open to life in at least some point in their marriage, then their marriage is not invalid on these grounds. 

48 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

If they later decide to come into line with Church teaching, that doesn't change the fact that when they married, they didn't truly understand the requirements of marriage.

This is a small quibble, but the ground of partial simulation (or lying about one's consent to some primary aspect of marriage, whether that be the call to fidelity, permanence, or openness to life; cf. can. 1101), is a different ground from being in error about the nature of marriage to the extent that it determined one's consent (cf. can. 1099). 

55 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

If later during a midlife crisis one of them takes a younger spouse or becomes a compulsive gambler, and they divorce, they can easily obtain an annulment.

It might be de facto easy to obtain an annulment in this situation in some places, but I'm not sure it SHOULD be. Unless the problems that lead to the breakdown of the marriage were present in at least some significant way from the very beginning of the union, then they wouldn't affect the validity of the marriage. 

For example, if one spouse clearly never intended to take her promise of fidelity seriously, then her taking a younger spouse during a mid-life crisis could be a manifestation of this deception/lack of consent, which might be used in support of a petition for a declaration of nullity. On the other hand, if she did indeed mean what she promised on her wedding day, any later infidelity on her part would not retroactively invalidate her marriage vows. 

Likewise, for the compulsive gambler---was this addiction actually present on their wedding day, and to such a pathological extent that it truly diminished the ability for consent? If it wasn't, then it wouldn't affect the validity of the marriage.

However, even when a declaration of nullity might not always be possible in cases where living with the other spouse becomes seriously unbearable or dangerous, the Church does allow for the possibility of spouses separating even when the marriage bond still remains. 

[Archaeology cat]

Interesting. We have done vow renewals at our 5th and 10th anniversaries. At the 10th, the priest blessed our rings again and basically had us say the wedding vows again. We also got a papal blessing for our 10th.  

[CatherineM]

Reason I asked for opinions is that the head of our tribunal here is a friend and former classmate. He's young, but crazy bright. I've been toying with the idea of a type of divorce mediation except for those seeking annulments. They're basically kicking me out of school with my masters and not letting me delay and take more classes. So now they expect me to do something with it besides writing kids books about my basset hound. 

[LittleWaySoul]

3 hours ago, CatherineM said:

Reason I asked for opinions is that the head of our tribunal here is a friend and former classmate. He's young, but crazy bright. I've been toying with the idea of a type of divorce mediation except for those seeking annulments. They're basically kicking me out of school with my masters and not letting me delay and take more classes. So now they expect me to do something with it besides writing kids books about my basset hound. 

Mediation for couples seeking annulments could be a great ministry! It could also be good for individuals post-annulment to try to learn what went wrong with their first attempt at marriage in order to avoid the same mistake again. 

[CatherineM]

I found some of the saddest annulments I worked with were where one partner had moved on and one hadn't. 20 years later, one partner is trying to fix his remarriage with the Church and the other former spouse is clinging to something that's been dead a long time. Lots of room for healing on both sides.