Question for Catholics re: annulment of marriage

[Parrothead]

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

With so little info I can only guess.

 

Marriage 1 had to be annulled because while not sacramental (not Catholic) it was a valid marriage. The Church recognizes Christian, yet non-Catholic, marriage.

 

Marriage 2 may not have been considered a valid marriage since technically although divorced from your dad, she was not free to marry again since she had not had an annulment. The church would consider marriage 2 as "living in sin."

 

Marriage 3 as a new Catholic marrying a Catholic in the church her first marriage would have had to have been annulled. Her new husband was free to marry only if his wife died prior to his marriage to your mom.

 

This is a lot of guesswork without knowing the intimate details.

 

Annulments do not retroactively make children of the marriage illegitimate.

[Parrothead]

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.

:iagree: Here we are trying to get the correct information out using the wrong terms. :glare:

 

Again, I apologize.

[Cindy in FL.]

My mom's second marriage (and third and fourth) were done by the Justice of the Peace/Notaries, so that could be the difference.

 

Another thing that bothers me is she really was a consummate liar and no doubt pulled the wool over the eyes of those involved in the annulment. I can't blame them for that as they can only go by the information they have.

 

Cindy

[Violet Crown]

So much of this confusion lies at the feet of the shepherds of the Church. Half a century of pastorally avoiding hurting the feelings of divorcees and Protestants by refraining from teaching Church doctrine, and implying or saying outright that Vatican 2 changed all the rules.

 

Through the mid-20th century, Protestants and Catholics alike knew that the Church wasn't going to recognize your marriage if either of you was a divorcee with a spouse still alive. If you married a Catholic, practicing or not, you knew that the Church wouldn't accept your marriage unless you were married in the Church, and would barely tolerate it (you would be married quietly in the priest's study) if you didn't convert. Everyone knew that if you didn't really mean "till death do you part" when you assented to it, or didn't see children as part of your future, the Church considered you to be agreeing to concubinage, not entering into a valid marriage.

 

Now nobody knows those things, and when it all turns ugly and messy, and the Tribunal tries to gather up the pieces and sort them out, nobody is happy.

 

[\rant]

 

ETA: Wow, killed the thread. Maybe this is why people IRL seem to edge away when I start expostulating.....

Edited August 29, 2012 by Sharon in Austin

[ktgrok]

Remembered the word I was thinking of!!!!! Licit. In the Catholic church there are two things, Licit and Valid. They are different.

 

And that's all I remember...it was taught in my graduate level Catholicism class in college about 15 years ago, so I'm lucky I remember that! But I THINK that what happens in annulment is the marriage is still licit, but not valid. On the other hand, there could be valid marriages that are not licit, if they were not recognized by the civil authorities. I remember this being complicated, lol.

[justamouse]

So much of this confusion lies at the feet of the shepherds of the Church. Half a century of pastorally avoiding hurting the feelings of divorcees and Protestants by refraining from teaching Church doctrine, and implying or saying outright that Vatican 2 changed all the rules.

 

Through the mid-20th century, Protestants and Catholics alike knew that the Church wasn't going to recognize your marriage if either of you was a divorcee with a spouse still alive. If you married a Catholic, practicing or not, you knew that the Church wouldn't accept your marriage unless you were married in the Church, and would barely tolerate it (you would be married quietly in the priest's study) if you didn't convert. Everyone knew that if you didn't really mean "till death do you part" when you assented to it, or didn't see children as part of your future, the Church considered you to be agreeing to concubinage, not entering into a valid marriage.

 

Now nobody knows those things, and when it all turns ugly and messy, and the Tribunal tries to gather up the pieces and sort them out, nobody is happy.

 

[\rant]

 

ETA: Wow, killed the thread. Maybe this is why people IRL seem to edge away when I start expostulating.....

 

Actually, I appreciated that. Thank you.