Boy that's a relief. Annulments were more applicable in the earlier societies when there were arranged or forced marriages. In this society, especially in a Catholic Marriage, there should be extrememly few annulments because the Church is so diligent beforehand to be sure there is NO impediment to the union. As long as a couple is free to marry (never married or widowed), and is in sound mind and health, and is meaning to be faithful to their spouse at the time of marriage (later infidelity does NOT invalidate a marriage) almost all marriages are valid in God's eyes is what He told me.
In my case, my ex did not intend that the marriage would be permanent, and he told someone that just days before the wedding.
I always thought annullment was not a good word. It suggests a wedding took place in the first place and it had to be done away with. In fact the whole point is that there never was a wedding in the first place. So how can it be annulled? If you see what I mean. I am starting to confuse myself.
I would have to disagree with you there, at least speaking from personal experience and from what I see going on here in Ireland. For example, there is a program on TV here called Don't Tell the Bride, in which the groom has a few weeks to organise the wedding without the bride knowing any of the details, apart from the fact that she is getting married and the date of the wedding. I have seen episodes in which the groom has arranged a Church wedding when the bride was expecting to be married in a registry office. She doesn't find out she's having a church wedding until the wedding car arrives at the church, and in one show I saw, she was not at all happy about getting married in the Church. How can this possibly be allowed? How can this be a valid sacrament? I also know of one couple who had to "compromise" by having a church wedding when what they actually wanted was a civil wedding but they couldn't get a registry office on the day they wanted. In my own case, there was no diligence to speak of on the part of the church to ensure there was no impediment, and as it turned out there were impediments. I took to heart what you wrote previously about your appartition Carmel, and I brought up my concerns in confession. The priest put my mind at rest, thankfully. I've noticed a lot of people on this forum seem to have problems with church annulments for various reasons, but I wonder how many of them have actually been through the annulment process, or even really know what they are talking about. Jesus did say that whatever his church bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever was loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. Did he include a disclaimer in the case of annulments? I understand what you said Carmel about people still going to hell because their motivation for seeking an annulment was adultery. But anyone who has adultery in their heart is going to hell anyway if they are not repentant, regardless of whether they are single, married, separated, divorced or annulled. What I'm saying is, it's the adulterous heart that is the problem, not the annulment.
I have no difficulty with annulments myself and although far from knowing much about them; I sometimes wonder if there was not some other way of doing it. Simpler...less administrative.
Well I think that is kind of what we have seen in recent years, a less administrative process. For me, the annulment process seemed very pastoral; more like counselling, in a way. That is not to say it wasn't rigourous - it was, and has to be, given the seriousness of the task. I think the move in recent years has been towards opening up the whole process to compassion, not making it "easier", as some seem to believe.
Phillip I believe things are a lot more complicated than this. This document ("The Power of Grace") by the Prefect of the Vatican CDF is an excellent and clear summary of the Church's present position on this pastoral issue. For that alone Archbishop Muller should be applauded. We can readily observe that this document is not an Encyclical, nor an Exhortation nor even a Vatican Congregational Instruction. It is an extended article (some call it an essay) personally placed by the ArchBishop in the Vatican State's Official Newspaper. As a Vatican commentator once said of such personal publications by Vatican heavy-weights “it’s not Denziger” (ie it will never be archived in the Vatican's book of official teachings/documents). I do not believe that the L'Osservatore Romano is required to seek explicit approval from Pope Francis for every article placed in this publication by Vatican officials. But what does this significant publication mean in the present context? I believe it is an early opening shot intended to influence pre-debate before the Synod called by Pope Francis for Oct 2014. The next question is - is it part of Pope Francis's plan for and "warming up" the faithful and "setting the limits of the debate" for bishops/theologians as we head towards this Synod? or is this the first explicit "counter move" by the ancient Vatican Apparatchek (the professional Roman administration) to keep a maverick Pope in check? Some further observations may be in order: (1) This Prefect of the CDF was not included the International Council of personal advisors whom Pope Francis chose to assist him in overhauling the Vatican Curial structures and to plan for this Synod. (2) Archbishop Muller has well summarised exactly the present situation - a situation which Pope Francis clearly stated is is not happy with and which he wants reviewed and improved in some way if at all possible. We recall Pope Francis, on that flight back from Rio de Janeiro (July 2013), told reporters the next synod would explore a "somewhat deeper pastoral care of marriage," including the question of the eligibility of divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion. Pope Francis added at the time that church law governing marriage annulments also "has to be reviewed, because ecclesiastical tribunals are not sufficient for this." link Yet Archbishop Muller flatly states all is well. The Church is showing as much mercy as Christ and the intrinsic nature of the Sacrament may allow through the judgements of Catholic Marriage Tribunals and by extra pastoral care for those unable to receive nourishment from the Sacraments. "If there are doubts concerning the validity of the failed marriage, these are to be carefully examined by the competent marriage tribunals... Because many Christians are influenced by [today's modern mentality re permanence/children] of marriage, marriages nowadays are probably invalid more often than they were previously... Therefore assessment of the validity of marriage is important and can help to solve problems." Archbisop Muller This is clearly a collision course with the Pope's present intent. Pope Francis clearly sees holes inadequacies in the present situation. He does not believe that Marriage Tribunals are doing such a stirling job (of recognising the invalidity of significant numbers of non-existant marriages) that Archbishop Muller blithely glosses over. Many wise and faithful Pastors would agree with him (including my 70 yr old PP). Contradictarily, the Archbishop also recognises the growth in number of first marriages that even he accepts would not be valid ones ab initio. CONTINUED BELOW...
...CONTINUED FROM ABOVE Validity of the Internal Forum Decision The Archbishop does not accept that conscience decisions are possible on the matter of persons in putatively second marriages attending Communion. "It is frequently suggested that remarried divorcees should be allowed to decide for themselves, according to their conscience, whether or not to present themselves for holy communion. This argument...was rejected by a document of the CDF in 1994. ... If remarried divorcees are subjectively convinced in their conscience that a previous marriage was invalid, this must be proven objectively by the competent marriage tribunals." Archbishop Muller. And the Archbishop is of course correct when speaking of persons who have not bothered to present their cases before a Catholic Marriage Tribunbal. Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict) was very clear about that in his 1994 document (Instruction on Reception of Holy Communion...", 1994) as mentioned above. However the Archbishop (himself appointed by Pope Benedict in 2012) shows himself more conservative than his mentor on the question of remarried persons who have likely been failed by the known limitations of Catholic Marriage Tribunals. Cardinal Ratzinger, in a little known article of1998 (published in the Vatican Newspaper 30/11/2011) showed himself very concerned about this issue. He put forward a variety of possible solutions for further study and review. These have become known of late as the "Ratzinger Hypotheses." It is exactly this Hypothesis that Pope Francis is now taking forward - just as Emeritus Pope Benedict once desired. The Ratzinger Hypothesis: Benedict XVI begins with a consideration that seems to close any sort of loophole: "If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception." A norm, the indissolubility of marriage, that is of "divine law" and "over which the Church has no discretionary authority." But immediately afterward, he adds: "However, the Church has the authority to clarify those conditions which must be fulfilled for a marriage to be considered indissoluble according to the sense of Jesus' teaching." And, he writes, the ecclesiastical tribunals that should ascertain whether or not a marriage is valid do not always function well. Sometimes the processes "last an excessive amount of time." In some cases "they conclude with questionable decisions." In still others "mistakes occur." In these cases the Pope suggests a decision of conscience may be on the cards, "it seems that the application of 'epikeia' in the internal forum is not automatically excluded." "Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible...because the juridical forum ... [only deals] with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions". (Cardinal Ratzinger, unsourced 1998 article in "L'Ossovatore Romano", 30/11/2011, p4). This is exactly where Pope Francis is coming from, in loyalty to Emeritus Pope Benedict's own theological opinion when he was Cardinal Ratzinger (Prefect of the CDF well before Archbishop Muller). It would appear Archbishop Muller is very aware of the Ratzinger Hypothesis as his article attempts to plug every loophole that Cardinal Ratzinger "demanded" needing further study and clarification. On the otherhand, maybe Archbishop Muller is simply playing "badcop" to kick off the discussion. The debate, far from being over, has just begun. It is going to be a very interesting ride in the next 14 months or so. If you wish to study the "Ratzinger Hypothesies" more closlely try this link here. If somebody was able to secure that 1998 article by Card Ratzinger I would be grateful It isn't available online from what I can see. STOPPRESS: Just found Cardinal Ratzinger's 1998 article here! Apparantly he wrote a further "footnore" in 2005 which I am attempting to track down also.
...it seems every observation made, and every argument presented in those writings can still be distilled down to something very simple: validity (at the time of the questioned sacramental marriage). To simplify even more (just for segregating his ideas, and then identifying what is inferred as needing "further study"), a clear case is made, for example, that Christians marrying Christians is the classic valid baseline. And conversely, Christians marrying non-Christians can be a classic potentially invalid baseline (though not the only one). Therefore, the "further study" inference seems to be a thought about whether the general state of apostasy among Christians, and the general corruption of Christian thought by secular humanist ideas at this time, can ultimately constitute a condition where one Christian or the other in the original sacramental marriage was rendered in effect "non-Christian", because of this heretical or hedonistic infusion into core belief. (<---just my guess). Nowhere does the discussion seem to veer from this stream of thought, and certainly doesn't mention any potential sin in the valid marriage encountered later, that could render the valid marriage invalid.
That sounds right Jon wrt to point 4 of his 5 points. In fact if you look at footnote #3 Emeritus Pope Benedict at a later date repeated this even more strongly: "During the spoke of this difficult question: “those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation...given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further." (Meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI ) So Pope Francis is simply doing what Pope Benedict requested in this article - make a further study/decision of these difficult theological issues under the impulse of Pastoral need and concern. The wording of the topic of this thread we are discussing is not particualrly helpful I feel. Pope Francis is not at all advocating "Divorce in the Catholic Church." The valid sacramental marriage of two Catholics is always indissoluble. "Divorce" (if you mean a 2nd valid marriage) will never be acceptable to the Church. While we all agree that the valid marriage of two Catholics is always indissoluable it has to be observed that the Power of the Keys has the authority to decide what conditions (a juridical matter) must be met for such a valid bond to be recognised. The Early Church in fact exercised just this authority in recognising the principle we call the "Pauline Privlege." A valid marriage with a non-believer is in fact dissolvable because it was not sacramental. It is a required condition for indissoluble marriages that they be Sacramental. Jesus never said that. The Early Church made that ruling. So any marriage with a non-Catholic is in principle able to be dissolved. The question Pope Benedict was asking went beyond this. He seemsto be asking if we need to Canon-Law-ise further conditions (apart from those implied in the Pauline Privilege) that could also inhibit the sacramentality of the original marriage, possibly even between two baptised "Catholics" (eg one is known to no longer believe). He is obviously referring to conditions other than those already in Canon Law (such as emotional immaturity which is currently most used reason for validly recognising Annulments). My emphasis above was more on Pope Benedict's point 3 of his 5 points: This concerns admission of those in "2nd" marriages to Communion by use of personal "Internal Forum" decisions in cases where the Tribunal has obviously failed some persons. He stated more study needs to be done on this issue as well.
There was a valid Canonical/Ecclesial wedding Padraig (up until the Annulment) so children born of that wedding would not be deemed illegitimate. But the couple (and the Church) were sincerely mistaken in believing an indisoluable matrimonial bond had ever formed before God. An Annulment is no more than an official judgement by the Church that on well researched grounds it is established that there was no bond in the first place (the "null" in anullment) and their Ecclesial canon-law status as officially married is removed. The Church has a legal system just like any Government. It is meant to correspond to what is in Heaven but the two obviously can get out of whack. Such is the same with "Excommunication". It is an Ecclesial sanction, not a judgement that someone is necessarily destined for hell or is thereby placed in hell. Were they fornicating in that relationship then? Well, technically/objectively they probably were (CCC 2353: Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman) if by "unmarried" the CCC refers to the bond before God - of course it is totally non culpable due to invincable ignorance of their situation. But if by "unmarried" we simply mean the official Ecclesial Canon-Law status of the couple then no they weren't fornicating.
Carmel I believe most marriages are annulled on the grounds that at least one party proveably did not have the maturity required to enter into a valid marriage. Anullments have been growing almost exponentially since the 1970s (esp in USA) and both Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Muller of the CDF accept that this is not because the Tribunals are too lenient. It is due to the breakdown of socierty. This means that in fact many individuals are not "of sound mind" as you put it.
In Ireland it used to take about seven years, there was a waiting list. I am not sure about now. Far, far, far too long.
It's a lot shorter now, average 2-3 years for a straight-forward case like mine was. Mine took about 2.5 yrs.
From Jesus' words to me, refusing to mature and be responsible is not an excuse. When He said of "sound mind" He meant no disease of the mind or spirit that violates one's ability to make a decision with free will. For example, schitzophrenia or severe alchoholism during the engagement and marriage process would impare one's ability to use free will. Being spoiled and narcisstic and looking for one's own happiness is a choice not an impediment to a valid marriage. Jesus told me He expects ALOT of us, and ALL souls that sign that contract with Him need the prayers and help of their spouse to come back to Heaven someday. Just because wife "got crazy" or husband got "lazy and drinks all the time" does not give us the right to dump them, get an annulment, and move on. Not trying to anger anyone, but just saying WATCH YOURSELVES! If in doubt at all, STAY AWAY from new relationships. Time is so short, and better to "cut it off" than sin and lose your soul for eternity.
Refusing to mature and be responsible is one thing; what about someone carrying emotional scars from childhood which prevent that person, despite their best efforts and will to take on the maturity necessary for marriage, from being able to do so? These are the kinds of considerations that are taken into account in the marriage tribunal and it's a very fine weighing up and balancing. Very few people fall into the neat category of either willfully immature narcissist on the one hand, or too mentally ill to make a sound judgement on the other. There are a lot of people who fall somewhere in between.
Well it seems to me you've just reduced marriage to what society has been claiming all along....too many variables to draw a line and consider a marriage valid or even worth saving. Of course it amazes me that almost all of these people applying for annulments are ALREADY either remarried civily or in a new relationship waiting for the Church to "get them out of sin". For a price of course and the tribunal knows what answer is expected of them so no pressure there....... Of course these same reasons you stated above probably would make one not able to remarry for the exact same reasons it was annulled. Then there are the children left without a parent they need in the home. No wonder our protestant brothers and sisters laugh at it and call it the "Catholic divorce for a price" It's just shameful and really scandalous to the spouse left holding the bag....
Carmel, It's clear that you have really strong feelings about this. But it's a stretch to say almost all of these people are just waiting for the Church to "get them out of sin", and to insinuate that it is something purchased. I also felt that this was a "black and white" issue at one time, and was painfully judgmental of my brothers and sisters who sought annulments. Then, I found myself seeking one. It was the most humiliating experience of my life. No matter where we stand on this issue personally, it's important to remember that Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose. He also told us that the measure we use to judge others will be used on us - which is a sobering thought!
I've been married for 43 years. There is little doubt in my mind that I (at least) was far too immature to have married when I did and our early years were 'rocky' because of it. The priest, who gave us a few pre-marriage talks, never as far as I recall mentioned maturity or our capacity to enter into a lifelong commitment and it never really occurred to me to consider it at the time. I suppose that it could be said that we were never married because of our youth and my own psychological immaturity at the time of the ceremony (which would be farcical at this stage! The responsibilities of marriage were actually part of the maturing process for both of us, we were parents within the first year and had to 'grow up' fast for the sake of our baby, especially me. I agree with Carmel that the Church's stance sometimes appears illogical and too easy for people who might be just 'fed up' with each other. I admit that some marriages are invalid from the start e.g. where one party did not intend the relationship to be permanent or where one party was unwilling to have children but failed to tell their spouse before marriage but surely when it comes to capacity and maturity, these come with time and are probably not going to be entirely evident at the time that a marriage is celebrated and this fairly obvious fact has to be acknowledged by everyone including the Church. My father in law, who practiced no religion, told my wife before our marriage that, if things got tough, she was never to appear on his doorstep expecting to be taken back and that if she did that he would send her straight home again. He would have laughed at an annulment based on immaturity. He meant it and it was probably part of the reason that she never left our home when things did get tough. I have been fortunate in having a very tolerant wife (bless her) but tolerance is part of the deal and is usually part of a long marital learning process.
