Question for Catholics re: annulment of marriage

[Laurie4b]

I am a Protestant with a very respectful view of the Catholic Church.

 

So what gives with this? A man, who is emotionally/psychologically abusive, has been committing adultery for years. Wife does not know, but separates as a step to try to change abuse pattern. Adultery is revealed. They divorce. He refuses to do any work towards reconciliation. Mistress is Catholic. They want to marry. There are children and grandchildren of the marriage. The wife (who would still like to reconcile if husband were ever to get healthy) receives letter that their marriage of decades, in which she has been faithful, has been annulled.

 

Does the RC church consider all marriages outside the Catholic Church irrelevant? Children and grandchildren are b#st@rds? Adultery is irrelevant? Annulment can be done hearing only one side of the story? This totally baffles me.

[Moxie]

My BIL got an annulment. It was a long process and many of our family members had to fill out papers telling what they knew about the marriage. Is it possible you don't have the full story?

[Starr]

Or life has it's connections. In some places annulment resembles divorce.

[mommaduck]

Curious as to what the Catholics say also. This was one of my issues with the RC. I'll withhold my comments for now though ;)

[Parrothead]

Does the RC church consider all marriages outside the Catholic Church irrelevant?

No.

 

Children and grandchildren are b#st@rds?

No. The annulment is not saying that the marriage never happened. It is saying that the marriage was not sacramental.

 

Adultery is irrelevant?

No. Do you know the grounds for the annulment?

 

Annulment can be done hearing only one side of the story?

Not as far as I know.

 

I'm sorry your friend has been hurt.

[Reeciecup]

The Catholic church doesn't recognize marriages outside of the church. So if they got married by a jop or in another religion, the church doesn't recognize that marriage. So even though they were legally married, if they weren't married by a priest it doesn't count. That's for Catholics though. Catholics have to marry in the church. I don't know the stance on non-Catholics getting married.

[Parrothead]

Curious as to what the Catholics say also. This was one of my issues with the RC. I'll withhold my comments for now though ;)

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what an annulment is and what it does. A lot of false teachings have led to a lot of heartache.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Yes, annulment is a long process. It is highly unlikely that she simply received a piece of paper without any notice. They should have required her input as well as the input of many others. As far as I know, the only exceptions to the ex-spouse not being interviewed should be in cases of abandonment where the ex-spouse cannot be located. However, there have been cases where unscrupulous people and undue influence were involved.

 

Annulment simply says a sacramental marriage did not take place (and serial, unrepentant adultery would show a state of mind incompatible for a sacramental marriage.) It does not say anything about the civil marriage. The children and grandchildren are considered legitimate. It is my understanding that the RC church does not recognize marriages outside the Catholic church as sacramental marriages, with a few exceptions. In the case of this man wanting to remarry, I would hope that the priest would be taking a very cautious look at this man and whether or not he was capable of a sacramental marriage, given his history.

[Bootsie]

Yes, the RC church does recognize Christian marriage outside of the RC church (or the question of annulment would not arise). An annulment is not a determination of whether a divorce is "justified." It is a determination of whether a Christian marriage occurred in the first place.

[mommaduck]

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what an annulment is and what it does. A lot of false teachings have led to a lot of heartache.

My issues are from what I have seen from studying history, church history, and from my conversations with other Catholics, including those that have received annulments (granted, the ones that I knew that had to acquire annulments were barely practicing Catholics, aka, they did just enough to not be considered excommunicated, but decidedly no more). I have a feeling that there are two lines of teaching amoungst Catholics, but searching out the particular legal stance of the RC can be pretty sticky. I'm willing to listen and hear what others say though :001_smile:

[Violet Crown]

Does the RC church consider all marriages outside the Catholic Church irrelevant? Children and grandchildren are b#st@rds? Adultery is irrelevant? Annulment can be done hearing only one side of the story? This totally baffles me.

 

1. No. Marriage is a natural good, and not limited to Catholics. Christ taught that it was instituted from the beginning of Man's existence.

 

2. No. The children of a union which was believed by one or both partners to be a real marriage are legitimate.

 

3. Yes. An annulment isn't a divorce, but a juridical pronouncement as to a marriage's validity at the time the marriage contract was entered into. If one party entered it with the intention of not remaining faithful, then no marriage was formed (because the person would not have been intending "marriage" but something else). But later adultery doesn't retroactively make it not a marriage.

 

4. No and yes. The wife wasn't blindsided by the letter; the Tribunal would have contacted her and asked her side of the story. Many people prefer not to cooperate, and then the Tribunal does the best it can with the evidence it's able to obtain from either party, from other witnesses, and from public and Church records.

 

None of this is to deny that the mass granting of annulments isn't a scandal.

[Parrothead]

The Catholic church doesn't recognize marriages outside of the church.

Yes it does.

 

So if they got married by a jop or in another religion, the church doesn't recognize that marriage.

What the church does not recognize is that the marriage is not sacramental.

 

So even though they were legally married, if they weren't married by a priest it doesn't count.

It does count, just not as a sacramental marriage.

 

That's for Catholics though. Catholics have to marry in the church.

Catholics who marry outside the church (and it happens often) may have their marriage sacramentallly blessed or convalidated.

 

I don't know the stance on non-Catholics getting married.

The church does recognize Christian marriage of non-Catholics.

[Parrothead]

My issues are from what I have seen from studying history, church history, and from my conversations with other Catholics, including those that have received annulments (granted, the ones that I knew that had to acquire annulments were barely practicing Catholics, aka, they did just enough to not be considered excommunicated, but decidedly no more). I have a feeling that there are two lines of teaching amoungst Catholics, but searching out the particular legal stance of the RC can be pretty sticky. I'm willing to listen and hear what others say though :001_smile:

Not necessarily two lines, but a lot of misunderstanding. Especially among older clergy. I don't know why happened or why but I know we've all heard the stories of people who were told that miscarried babies are in Hell, and the abandoned spouse is excommunicated for simply being abandoned.

 

There have been lots and lots of problems since civil divorce became so easy to get. Then add to it that no fault divorce and Vatican II kind of came about simultaneously, it is no wonder our parents and grandparents were given totally false information.

 

This of course perpetuates to the point that we have today with what seems like two (or even more) lines of thinking about what the church actually says. Very few actually went further than what their parish priest said since he is supposed to know about these things.

 

Today, with the advent of the information super highway things are starting to change. More and more people have access to Canon Law and Vatican documents. The CCC is available with google. There are also lots of websites dedicated to Catholic apologetics.

 

Slowly things are changing, but it does take time and lots of heartache for people.

[mommaduck]

Not necessarily two lines, but a lot of misunderstanding. Especially among older clergy. I don't know why happened or why but I know we've all heard the stories of people who were told that miscarried babies are in Hell, and the abandoned spouse is excommunicated for simply being abandoned.

 

There have been lots and lots of problems since civil divorce became so easy to get. Then add to it that no fault divorce and Vatican II kind of came about simultaneously, it is no wonder our parents and grandparents were given totally false information.

 

This of course perpetuates to the point that we have today with what seems like two (or even more) lines of thinking about what the church actually says. Very few actually went further than what their parish priest said since he is supposed to know about these things.

 

Today, with the advent of the information super highway things are starting to change. More and more people have access to Canon Law and Vatican documents. The CCC is available with google. There are also lots of websites dedicated to Catholic apologetics.

 

Slowly things are changing, but it does take time and lots of heartache for people.

Okay, question (please know that this is my thought process and I mean this in all honesty): was Queen Elizabeth I bastardized by her parent's annulment?

[Avila]

Okay, question (please know that this is my thought process and I mean this in all honesty): was Queen Elizabeth I bastardized by her parent's annulment?

 

King Henry and Anne Boleyn never had a sacramental marriage. So Elizabeth was, from birth, technically illegitimate. King Henry was still, in the eyes of the Church, married to Catherine of Aragon and therefore unable to enter into another marriage when he married Anne. No annulment was granted to Henry and Catherine by the Catholic Church.

[Parrothead]

Okay, question (please know that this is my thought process and I mean this in all honesty): was Queen Elizabeth I bastardized by her parent's annulment?

I don't know the story (will go look it up), but she should not have been. That is not a teaching of the church today. It should not have been a teaching of the church ever.

 

ETA: Wiki does not say who declared her illegitimate. Was it the church or the crown? Either way it was a power play and political not ecclesiastical.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Parrothead

[mommaduck]

King Henry and Anne Boleyn never had a sacramental marriage. So Elizabeth was, from birth, technically illegitimate. King Henry was still, in the eyes of the Church, married to Catherine of Aragon and therefore unable to enter into another marriage when he married Anne. No annulment was granted to Henry and Catherine by the Catholic Church.

So children born of marriages that are not considered sacramental, including those born of legal marriages, just outside the RCC, are considered illegitimate (?)

[Laurie4b]

My BIL got an annulment. It was a long process and many of our family members had to fill out papers telling what they knew about the marriage. Is it possible you don't have the full story?

 

I think I have the story. Was your bil Catholic? This man was not. His mistress is.

[ktgrok]

I am a Protestant with a very respectful view of the Catholic Church.

 

So what gives with this? A man, who is emotionally/psychologically abusive, has been committing adultery for years. Wife does not know, but separates as a step to try to change abuse pattern. Adultery is revealed. They divorce. He refuses to do any work towards reconciliation. Mistress is Catholic. They want to marry. There are children and grandchildren of the marriage. The wife (who would still like to reconcile if husband were ever to get healthy) receives letter that their marriage of decades, in which she has been faithful, has been annulled.

 

Does the RC church consider all marriages outside the Catholic Church irrelevant? Children and grandchildren are b#st@rds? Adultery is irrelevant? Annulment can be done hearing only one side of the story? This totally baffles me.

 

First, the children would NOT be bastards. The marriage is still a marriage in the sense that the children are legitimate. The annulment just says that although it was a legal marriage it was not a sacramental marriage. Which, from the sounds of it, it sure sounds like it wasn't. If either party was not mentally/emotionally healthy enough to truly commit to a lifelong sacrament at the time of the marriage than it isn't sacramental. That is all the annulmment says.

 

As for it being done without the wife's knowledge, that should NOT happen. The other party is given time to reply, and it generally takes a year or more. Now...if the husband was Catholic, but was not married in the Catholic church, then it can be annulled (I think it is a different word) more easily. But if neither were Catholic than it doesn't matter where they were married. Unless one wasn't baptized....then it is easier as well.

[Laurie4b]

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what an annulment is and what it does. A lot of false teachings have led to a lot of heartache.

 

So could you give correct information?

[Parrothead]

I don't know the story (will go look it up), but she should not have been. That is not a teaching of the church today. It should not have been a teaching of the church ever.

 

ETA: Wiki does not say who declared her illegitimate. Was it the church or the crown? Either way it was a power play and political not ecclesiastical.

I found the answer to my question. The Third Succession Act overturned the First and Second Succession Act which:

whose effect was to declare both Mary and Elizabeth bastards, and allow Henry to name his own successor.

 

The declaring Mary and Elizabeth bastards was not a church ruling.

[Laurie4b]

So children born of marriages that are not considered sacramental, including those born of legal marriages, just outside the RCC, are considered illegitimate (?)

 

I'd like to know the answer to this, too.

[Parrothead]

So could you give correct information?

I could try but it is complicated. I can give specific answers to specific questions. Let me see if I can find a good link that would explain it much better than I.

 

ETA: I need more tea, a shower and to get dd started on school. I will find something to answer your questions. Please don't think I've abandoned this thread.

[Parrothead]

So children born of marriages that are not considered sacramental, including those born of legal marriages, just outside the RCC, are considered illegitimate (?)

The short answer is no.

[Avila]

So children born of marriages that are not considered sacramental, including those born of legal marriages, just outside the RCC, are considered illegitimate (?)

 

No.

 

Henry's next child, Edward, is not considered illegitimate. By that time, Catherine of Aragon had died, leaving Henry free to remarry. So even though Henry and Jane were not married inside the Church, the Church can consider them married.

 

The Church can recognize marriage made outside the Church, so long as those parties are free to marry one another. People who are already married are not free to marry.

 

If your are talking about today, it is not even the same issue. The technical terms of illegitimacy for Elizabeth were more in terms of defining who would be able to inherit the throne, and only a child from a legally recognized marriage should be able to do that. Because Henry was not free to remarry and had not received an annulment from the Church, the Church never recognized his marriage to Anne or Elizabeth's right to inherit the throne.

 

Elizabeth's right to inherit in England was based on the Church of England and Henry's will, not the canon law of the Catholic Church though.

[Laurie4b]

1. No. Marriage is a natural good, and not limited to Catholics. Christ taught that it was instituted from the beginning of Man's existence.

 

2. No. The children of a union which was believed by one or both partners to be a real marriage are legitimate.

 

3. Yes. An annulment isn't a divorce, but a juridical pronouncement as to a marriage's validity at the time the marriage contract was entered into. If one party entered it with the intention of not remaining faithful, then no marriage was formed (because the person would not have been intending "marriage" but something else). But later adultery doesn't retroactively make it not a marriage.

 

4. No and yes. The wife wasn't blindsided by the letter; the Tribunal would have contacted her and asked her side of the story. Many people prefer not to cooperate, and then the Tribunal does the best it can with the evidence it's able to obtain from either party, from other witnesses, and from public and Church records.

 

None of this is to deny that the mass granting of annulments isn't a scandal.

 

Thank you very much. I appreciate the information. I believe both partners entered the marriage intending a legitimate marriage. The adultery came later.

[mommaduck]

I could try but it is complicated. I can give specific answers to specific questions. Let me see if I can find a good link that would explain it much better than I.

 

ETA: I need more tea, a shower and to get dd started on school. I will find something to answer your questions. Please don't think I've abandoned this thread.

Us think YOU have abandoned us? Never! :001_smile: Get your tea and shower, mama, and give that child a hug for me!

[Parrothead]

Us think YOU have abandoned us? Never! :001_smile: Get your tea and shower, mama, and give that child a hug for me!

:grouphug:

[Laurie4b]

Yes, annulment is a long process. It is highly unlikely that she simply received a piece of paper without any notice. They should have required her input as well as the input of many others. As far as I know, the only exceptions to the ex-spouse not being interviewed should be in cases of abandonment where the ex-spouse cannot be located. However, there have been cases where unscrupulous people and undue influence were involved.

 

Annulment simply says a sacramental marriage did not take place (and serial, unrepentant adultery would show a state of mind incompatible for a sacramental marriage.) It does not say anything about the civil marriage. The children and grandchildren are considered legitimate. It is my understanding that the RC church does not recognize marriages outside the Catholic church as sacramental marriages, with a few exceptions. In the case of this man wanting to remarry, I would hope that the priest would be taking a very cautious look at this man and whether or not he was capable of a sacramental marriage, given his history.

 

Thank you for the information.

[Laurie4b]

First, the children would NOT be bastards. The marriage is still a marriage in the sense that the children are legitimate. The annulment just says that although it was a legal marriage it was not a sacramental marriage. Which, from the sounds of it, it sure sounds like it wasn't. If either party was not mentally/emotionally healthy enough to truly commit to a lifelong sacrament at the time of the marriage than it isn't sacramental. That is all the annulmment says.

 

As for it being done without the wife's knowledge, that should NOT happen. The other party is given time to reply, and it generally takes a year or more. Now...if the husband was Catholic, but was not married in the Catholic church, then it can be annulled (I think it is a different word) more easily. But if neither were Catholic than it doesn't matter where they were married. Unless one wasn't baptized....then it is easier as well.

 

Thank you for the information. I'm developing a theory of what has happened. It took maybe a couple months from the time of a civil divorce.

[Avila]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the information. I believe both partners entered the marriage intending a legitimate marriage. The adultery came later.

 

The decision about an annulment is always based on the situation at the time of the marriage and not what happened later. So the adultery might have been symptomatic of whatever was going on that made one or both of the people unable to enter into a sacramental marriage, but the adultery by itself is not cause for an annulment.

 

Annulments are tricky and complicated. And catechism has been poor in this country for a long time, so honestly many people don't have a good understanding of what a sacramental marriage is and therefore enter into marriage not fully prepared to do so. That is really a sad situation.

 

We all know that divorce affects everyone involved, but the annulment should not be more painful than whatever led to the civil divorce. And the way the process is set up, no one should be blindsided by it.

[mommaduck]

No.

 

Henry's next child, Edward, is not considered illegitimate. By that time, Catherine of Aragon had died, leaving Henry free to remarry. So even though Henry and Jane were not married inside the Church, the Church can consider them married.

 

The Church can recognize marriage made outside the Church, so long as those parties are free to marry one another. People who are already married are not free to marry.

 

If your are talking about today, it is not even the same issue. The technical terms of illegitimacy for Elizabeth were more in terms of defining who would be able to inherit the throne, and only a child from a legally recognized marriage should be able to do that. Because Henry was not free to remarry and had not received an annulment from the Church, the Church never recognized his marriage to Anne or Elizabeth's right to inherit the throne.

 

Elizabeth's right to inherit in England was based on the Church of England and Henry's will, not the canon law of the Catholic Church though.

Okay, I was thinking initially of Mary being bastardized. Then Elizabeth. I know there was constant back and forth of politics that should never have been there.

[Avila]

Okay, I was thinking initially of Mary being bastardized. Then Elizabeth. I know there was constant back and forth of politics that should never have been there.

 

Mary was never declared illegitimate by the Catholic Church. And it is my understanding that even if some reason had been found for the marriage between Henry and Catherine to be annulled, because they had entered into it innocently, Mary could still have been able to inherit the throne.

[Violet Crown]

Fellow Catholics, please stop confusing 'valid' and 'sacramental.' I have a personal stake in this, as my marriage is valid but not sacramental. My children are legitimate, and I am a Catholic in good standing, my marriage blessed by the Church.

 

'Valid' just means 'really existing.' An annulment declares that there was no marriage at all; that is, the "marriage" was not valid (never actually existed). It has nothing to do with whether the marriage was sacramental.

 

'Sacramental' means the real, valid, actual marriage was between two baptized persons, and is therefore a sacrament. It has nothing to do with validity, civil marriage, legitimacy of the children, acceptability by the Church, or annulments.

 

I married an unbaptized person, with the Dispensation of the Church, according to Church canons. My marriage was blessed by the assisting priest. It is a valid marriage, but not sacramental, as dh is not a Christian.

 

When Catholics talk about annulments declaring a marriage "not sacramental" as if that means the marriage is nothing and the parties can remarry at will, it's a little painful. So please stop.

[aggieamy]

There are a few things that seem off about the OP's situation. DH has recently had his first marriage annulled so I'm familiar with all that goes into the process. First, it was a very long and involved process - it took at least a year and a half from start to finish. His ex-wife recieved multiple notifications throughout the process, at least three. He had to have five people that knew him and his ex at the time of the marriage fill out long and involved forms with information about what they were like at the time of the marriage. It wasn't an easy, quick, or painless process. That's not to say though that if the man wasn't a complete scoundrel then he couldn't have lied and given a wrong address for his ex-wife so she wouldn't have gotten any information. That would be between him and God though and not a fault of the Church.

[mommaduck]

 

'Valid' just means 'really existing.' An annulment declares that there was no marriage at all; that is, the "marriage" was not valid (never actually existed). It has nothing to do with whether the marriage was sacramental.

 

This is what we were taught an annulment meant, both in the RC and in Protestantism. This is why it's a very sore subject. My understanding was that it was supposed to only include marriages where one was basically "tricked" or one where the marriage was never consummated (thus Marie Antoinette's precarious position early in her marriage) and perhaps one or two other issues.

[Parrothead]

Thank you for the information. I'm developing a theory of what has happened. It took maybe a couple months from the time of a civil divorce.

Is either the husband or wife in this case Catholic? Lots of what could have happened depends on that answer.

[Parrothead]

Fellow Catholics, please stop confusing 'valid' and 'sacramental.' I have a personal stake in this, as my marriage is valid but not sacramental. My children are legitimate, and I am a Catholic in good standing, my marriage blessed by the Church.

 

'Valid' just means 'really existing.' An annulment declares that there was no marriage at all; that is, the "marriage" was not valid (never actually existed). It has nothing to do with whether the marriage was sacramental.

 

'Sacramental' means the real, valid, actual marriage was between two baptized persons, and is therefore a sacrament. It has nothing to do with validity, civil marriage, legitimacy of the children, acceptability by the Church, or annulments.

 

I married an unbaptized person, with the Dispensation of the Church, according to Church canons. My marriage was blessed by the assisting priest. It is a valid marriage, but not sacramental, as dh is not a Christian.

 

When Catholics talk about annulments declaring a marriage "not sacramental" as if that means the marriage is nothing and the parties can remarry at will, it's a little painful. So please stop.

Yes, you are correct. Sorry. I can only blame lack of sleep and lack of caffeine. :grouphug:

[Avila]

Sorry, Sharon.

 

I think we have a tendency to use the word sacramental to distinguish between "marriage in the eyes of the Church" and a civil marriage. Valid or invalid also has its complications. And of course, you can have a valid marriage that is not sacramental in nature.

 

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

[Trish]

The Catholic church doesn't recognize marriages outside of the church. So if they got married by a jop or in another religion, the church doesn't recognize that marriage. So even though they were legally married, if they weren't married by a priest it doesn't count. That's for Catholics though. Catholics have to marry in the church. I don't know the stance on non-Catholics getting married.

 

The Catholic church considers Christian marriages to be valid.

 

Generally I haven't heard of an annulment being granted hearing only one person's side of the story. In fact I've heard of the opposite -- annulments being held up or denied because the other spouse has not cooperated with the process. Not saying it doesn't happen, like a lot of what goes on in the American Catholic Church, the process can be deeply flawed.

[ktgrok]

Wanted to add that I actually am in this process. My marraige took place before I was Catholic. So it doesn't matter that we weren't married in the Catholic church, the marriage is presumed sacramental until proven otherwise. In my case my ex had severe mental health issues at the time of our marriage, and only married me because he felt he was supposed to. So he was NOT in a place to make a marriage commitment, and therefore the marriage was not a Sacrament in the eyes of the church. It WAS a marriage, our child is legitimate, but the marraige wasn't a sacrament. And as my ex husband isn't Catholic, and doesn't believe marriage is a sacrament anyway (he isn't even Christian anymore), he has no problem cooperating with the annulment. He never thought of it as a Sacrament anyway, so having the church say it isn't doesn't change things for him.

 

Edited to say: Sorry Sharon, you are right, I'm typing quickly and not being specific. There is valid/scaramental/and another word I'm blanking on, that I should have meant. But either way, yes, marriages can be totally valid and not a sacrament, and that doesn't make them any less real, or the children less legitimate. Plus, when one partner isn't baptized there is a whole nother set of rules.

 

all that said, I'm currently a member of an Episcopal church, and had my second marriage in it, and the process is simpler...you must get premission from the Bishop to remarry, and show that whatever impediments you had to your first marriage no longer exist.

Edited August 29, 2012 by ktgrok

[Parrothead]

Laurie, this article may be of some help to you.

 

This is another one that may answer some questions.

 

If you have more specific questions we should be able to find answers for you.

[Mom in High Heels]

I never understood the purpose of the annulment. My friend was married in the Catholic church (both she and her dh were Catholic), had kids and then divorced about 8 or 9 years later. A few years after the divorce, she met another Catholic and they got engaged. She had to get an annulment to be married by the Church again. Why? Her 1st marriage was done by the Church, so how could they then annul it as not being a real marriage? Doesn't that set a precedence for marriages of the Church not being real?

 

FTR, James Bond and I were married in the Catholic Church where his parents were married (it's truly gorgeous), though neither of us are religious now.

[Avila]

This is what we were taught an annulment meant, both in the RC and in Protestantism. This is why it's a very sore subject. My understanding was that it was supposed to only include marriages where one was basically "tricked" or one where the marriage was never consummated (thus Marie Antoinette's precarious position early in her marriage) and perhaps one or two other issues.

 

If one or either party was not capable of entering into marriage as the Church defines it, there would be a valid reason for annulment. But that does not always require something deliberate.

 

People should be going into marriage fully understanding what it is and what they are undertaking, and many are not. None of that makes them good or bad or deliberately trying to trick anyone. I think Americans have reduced marriage to a contract that is only good when both parties feel like they are benefitting, and that is not the way the Church sees it or teaches it.

[Parrothead]

I stumbled across this website. Lots of good info here.

[Avila]

I never understood the purpose of the annulment. My friend was married in the Catholic church (both she and her dh were Catholic), had kids and then divorced about 8 or 9 years later. A few years after the divorce, she met another Catholic and they got engaged. She had to get an annulment to be married by the Church again. Why? Her 1st marriage was done by the Church, so how could they then annul it as not being a real marriage? Doesn't that set a precedence for marriages of the Church not being real?

 

FTR, James Bond and I were married in the Catholic Church where his parents were married (it's truly gorgeous), though neither of us are religious now.

 

It doesn't. It assumes people are human. Annulments are not automatic. There is a lot involved to get one, and not everyone who pursues an annulment is granted one. The process is still a valid one. No priest can fully know what is going on in the minds of the people he is marrying to each other. A priest performs a marriage in good faith.

 

If that marriage fails, both parties have the right to have the marriage examined to see whether they qualify for a decree of nullity.

[Cindy in FL.]

My mother and father were married for 18 years (non-Catholics), then my mom requested a divorce. She was having an affair. She married and divorced that man three different times in the span of about 8 years. She then wanted to marry a Catholic man who wanted to be married in the church so she converted to Catholicism. (They were having an affair while he was married, but his wife died).

 

My mother got an annulment of her marriage to my father, but not to the second guy. I don't really know who provided testimory for her. I don't understand why she needed an annulment for the first marriage but not the subsequent ones. Anyone know the answer to that? I'd ask her but she died 4 years ago.

 

All I know is that it has really left a bad taste in my mouth all these years.

 

Cindy

[Avila]

My mother and father were married for 18 years (non-Catholics), then my mom requested a divorce. She was having an affair. She married and divorced that man three different times in the span of about 8 years. She then wanted to marry a Catholic man who wanted to be married in the church so she converted to Catholicism. (They were having an affair while he was married, but his wife died).

 

My mother got an annulment of her marriage to my father, but not to the second guy. I don't really know who provided testimory for her. I don't understand why she needed an annulment for the first marriage but not the subsequent ones. Anyone know the answer to that? I'd ask her but she died 4 years ago.

 

All I know is that it has really left a bad taste in my mouth all these years.

 

Cindy

 

It is really hard to talk about specifics because none of us were they, and we don't know what happened.

 

My guess is that since the first marriage was considered the valid marriage, she was never free to marry the second man. It would also have to do with how those marriages were taking place (at a justice of the peace or in a church?) and whether both parties were baptized, etc.

 

Technically, if the reason for annulment is that one party was unable to form the intent to enter into a valid marriage, even after the annulment, that person would not be able to marry again unless that situation was addressed.

 

But we don't know the terms of the annulment or what was going on at the time of the first marriage or what she told anyone involved in the process.

 

I am really sorry this hurt your family.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Asenik

[Violet Crown]

Yes, you are correct. Sorry. I can only blame lack of sleep and lack of caffeine. :grouphug:

 

Sorry, Sharon.

 

I think we have a tendency to use the word sacramental to distinguish between "marriage in the eyes of the Church" and a civil marriage. Valid or invalid also has its complications. And of course, you can have a valid marriage that is not sacramental in nature.

 

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

 

Sorry, on re-reading, I sounded pretty hyper-sensitive there. Too many years of avoiding women's retreats for just this reason, I suppose.

[Avila]

Sorry, on re-reading, I sounded pretty hyper-sensitive there. Too many years of avoiding women's retreats for just this reason, I suppose.

 

I am glad you brought it up. I think it is a good point to make.

 

I am sorry if we were careless and that brought up bad memories for you.