Annulments

[QuagDabPeg]

When applying for an annulment do you look at the marriage itself or what went on before? I thought it only mattered what happened during the ceremony and whether you understood at the time and not what happened afterwords. I was taught that even if the husband is abusive it doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what went on at the time of the sacrament.

 

[Carrye]

The marriage was either valid from the start or it wasn't. Nothing after the fact changes that.

 

[Paul S]

What matters is the matter, form, and intent of the sacrament at the time it occurred. Things that happen afterwards can be evidence of one's intent at the time, but if you were validly married, nothing except death can change that.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

That's what I thought. Then why do you need testimonies of people from when you were married? It doesn't matter what happens when your married, it's about before.

 

[Paul S]

Because what happens afterwards can indicate one's intent at the time of the wedding.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

How would that work though? Would you need a witness who said "oh he told me he never really believed in the whole marraige thing" or something like that? I dont' understand how that could possibly prove that.

 

[Skripper]

How would that work though? Would you need a witness who said "oh he told me he never really believed in the whole marraige thing" or something like that? I dont' understand how that could possibly prove that.

Here's a couple of examples.

If there was abuse during the "marriage" this could be an indicator that the proper intent was never there to "love, honor, cherish . . . etc."

If there was adultery this could be an indicator that the proper intent to "cleave only unto him/her, forsaking all others" may never have been there at the time of the ceremony. And so forth . . .

 

[Carrye]

to "love, honor, cherish . . . etc."

So that old "obey" is just implied?

 

[QuagDabPeg]

Here's a couple of examples.

If there was abuse during the "marriage" this could be an indicator that the proper intent was never there to "love, honor, cherish . . . etc."

If there was adultery this could be an indicator that the proper intent to "cleave only unto him/her" may never have been there at the time of the ceremony. And so forth . . .

But how do you know that? How can you possible know what that means. Otherwise anytime someone cheated they could get an annulment right? I just don't understand how you'd ever actually know. How do they decide? It seems like it would be such an impossible task. I mean, people go through 6 months of marriage classes to be married in the church right? How could they not know?

 

[Skripper]

So that old "obey" is just implied?

I said "etc." I didn't want to get off on any tangents. And "obey" wasn't required to make my point.

 

[Skripper]

But how do you know that? How can you possible know what that means.

You can't "know." But you asked why this information is asked for. This is one of the likely reasons. Keep in mind, Quag, the decision to grant or deny a declaration of nullity is not based solely on this alone. It is but a part of the information the tribunal attempts to gather to reach a decision.

Otherwise anytime someone cheated they could get an annulment right?

No, absolutely not. This does not follow from the above. It merely helps to provide the tribunal with some of the necessary insight into the circumstances at the time of the ceremony. As I said, this is but a portion of the information the tribunal tries to obtain to help make a decision . . . a portion. The decision is not based soley on this.

I just don't understand how you'd ever actually know. How do they decide?

I don't know. I'm not privy to the deliberations of a marriage tribunal.

It seems like it would be such an impossible task. I mean, people go through 6 months of marriage classes to be married in the church right? How could they not know?

It is a difficult task. Which is exactly why decrees of nullity are very difficult to obtain compared to, say, a divorce. Moreover, it's not a matter of them "not knowing." It's a matter them not intending to honor their vows. This happens frequently. Many, many people just go through the motions, taking whatever classes are required, saying whatever is expected of them, without ever having any intention of honoring their marriage vows. It happens all the time.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

So when they grant an annulment is it certain, can you know 100% your not living in sin or is it just based on there best judgement so there's a chance that even though you've had an annulment you are still living in sin and committing adultery?

 

[Skripper]

So when they grant an annulment is it certain, can you know 100% your not living in sin or is it just based on there best judgement so there's a chance that even though you've had an annulment you are still living in sin and committing adultery?

The answer is . . . both. The decision to grant a decree of nullity is indeed based on the best judgement of the tribunal. However, the petitioner can be certain that they are not living in sin if one was completely honest in the information provided to the tribunal. If a marriage tribunal does make a mistake (which only God would truly know), and the petitioner acted in good faith on that, he or she would not be subjectively guilty of sin . . . provided the information the petitioner provided were honest and accurate, to the best of their knowledge, and did not knowingly deceive the tribunal.

 

[Dream]

Granting annulments can be a sticky situation. It's never a black and white issue.

 

[MariaRegina]

One of my previous confessors was a priest on the Marriage Tribunal.

He said that many times annulments are granted because of the immaturity of one or both of the couples. Couples can simply be infatuated and not really in love. Our self-centered society really is to blame here. Hence, even if they attended a pre-Cana conference or Engaged Encounter, it would not prepare them as they may be in denial of reality.

If a person is immature or mentally ill, then they would not be permitted to marry in the Church once an annulment is granted UNLESS they received counseling and are then deemed able to freely consent to the marriage vows.

A guilty party (one who committed adultery or abused his/her spouse) may not be allowed to ever marry in the Church. Just because a party obtains an annulment doesn't mean that they are enabled to find a new partner and to marry in the Church.

Divorce causes a lot of pain both spiritually and mentally. Many times the parties are recommended to seek counseling to help them heal so that they won't make a similar mistake.

Hope this helps.

 

[RedTulipMom]

how do they determine the cost of the anulment? Is it based on income? If so what if you dont have a job, do they do it free of charge?

karen

 

[Skripper]

how do they determine the cost of the anulment? Is it based on income? If so what if you dont have a job, do they do it free of charge?

karen

Although I'm not sure "how" it's determined, I know the cost varies from dicese to diocese. And that none charge anywhere near the actual costs, from the standpoint of the amount of time and effort that goes into it from the tribunal members, at least one of whom is a canon lawyer and another a priest (although in some cases a priest may also be a canon lawyer). The costs that are passed on to the petitioner are but a fraction of the actual costs involved, in all cases, regardless of income. Most dioceses charge anywhere from a few hundred to several hundred dollars. But it's also based on economic need because, to my knowledge, no doicese will refuse the process to anyone unable to pay.