Validity of N.O. Annulments

[AGtoTrad]

I want to ask about the validity of the NO Annulments. The arguement against the validity is simply the 'rubber stamping' of annullments since post VII.

 

And even if these were 'rubber stamped', they would still be valid?  I suppose the thought comes to mind for me is that though there is indeed abuse in the marriage tribunals especially in America that doesn't make these annulments invalid. And whatever is bound on earth is bound in Heaven and whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven no matter the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

[QuisUtDeus]

Unless one has a specific reason to believe a specific annulment should not have been granted, then I think we should accept it in good faith.

 

Not every annulment is rubber-stamped, and unfortunately people enter into marriage these days for a number of reasons that would make it invalid.  So I don't know the problem is as much the annulment process as the pre-marriage counseling and questioning the priests do.  A lot of people should not have been allowed to get married in the first place.

 

 

[OLRansom]

"What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

 

Men cannot dissolve that which is indissoluble - no matter what the paper says.  If the (Sacramental) marriage was valid - and the contrary must be proven in order to declare it null and void (to annul it) - no power in this world can bring about its dissolution.

[BaltimoreCatholic]

If memory serves, isn't one of the big questions asked is if you're willing to accept children?  If one or both parties say they are, and then don't follow through, isn't that acceptable grounds for an annulment?

[claiborne]

Fascinating question!  I have occasionally wondered the same thing.  Can the Church declare a valid marriage invalid?  Does this contradict the 'loosed on earth, loosed in heaven' promise? What if She does declare a valid marriage invalid and leaves the parties supposedly free to remarry?  This makes the parties UNWITTING and possibly UNWILLING adulterers. Is this sin then imputable to the parties involved (assuming they are acting in good faith)?  Surely some trustworthy theologians and thinkers have written about this. I'm sure I'm not up to figuring it out.

JMJ

[Mark]

I want to ask about the validity of the NO Annulments. The arguement against the validity is simply the 'rubber stamping' of annullments since post VII.

 

And even if these were 'rubber stamped', they would still be valid?  I suppose the thought comes to mind for me is that though there is indeed abuse in the marriage tribunals especially in America that doesn't make these annulments invalid. And whatever is bound on earth is bound in Heaven and whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven no matter the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes I seriously wonder if many marriages are valid in this day and age. Some people have an incredibly warped sense of marriage and it's nothing serious to them at all. I do recal little Jacinta of Fatima saying "Many marriages are not of God" so it does make one wonder.

 

 

 

 

[MikeSearson]

Keep in mind.

 

An annulment is not a dissolution.

An annulment states the marriage was not valid to begin with.

 

Annulments are not infallible, but they are binding.

[AGtoTrad]

"What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

 

Men cannot dissolve that which is indissoluble - no matter what the paper says.  If the (Sacramental) marriage was valid - and the contrary must be proven in order to declare it null and void (to annul it) - no power in this world can bring about its dissolution.

 

I understand that, so my next question is: why have annulments available at all?

[QuisUtDeus]

Read what Searson said.

 

The marriage never occured.  The Sacrament was invalid.  It's like going to confession and finding out the priest was fake 5 years later, or going to Communion and finding out what you got was a dorito (and thus invalid matter).

 

The reason for annulment is to not force someone to be bound to a marriage unlawfully.  It's basically just a decision on if the Sacrament of marriage was validly received or not - no more and no less.  It has side effects such as if one can remarry or not, but that's not the point of the tribunal - it's to determine the validity of the Sacrament.

[spasiisochrani]

I know two couples who clearly have invalid marriages.  The first couple were friends of mine from (a Catholic) college.  He wanted to marry her, and she said she would agree if they also agreed that they would each be free to take up with other people if they ever wanted to.  This would be an intention contrary to the exclusivity of marriage.  They are still together, and have several children.

 

The wife in the second couple was also a friend of mine from many years ago.  She went to the same Catholic college, but after I did.  She agreed to marry her boyfriend, but only if he agreed that they would never have children.  They never have.  They also are still together.  

 

If either couple ever breaks up and got an annulment, I would have no quarrel with it.