Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on January 11, 2025, 12:14:15 PM
-
Please excuse this question being put on the Anonymous forum. There is a reason for it.
Does anyone know what are the true, traditional grounds for a Catholic annulment?
I don't mean the chaos of the New Church annulments with their devastating results.
I mean, before Vatican II, there were true grounds for the granting of an annulment - which is, a recognition by proper Church authority and through Her proper channels, that there was no marriage bond created or established between the couple to begin with!
What were the pre-Vatican II reasons that the True Church would grant an annulment? Does anyone know those requirements?
-
You could reasonably hope to get an annulment
1. If there was physical force exerted (a "shotgun marriage")
2. Deception as to the *identity* of the spouse (you thought you were marrying Alice, but her sister Betty pretended to be Alice and so you accidentally married Betty)
3. Insanity or lack of the use of reason at the time of the wedding (high or drunk while you made your vows)
4. No intention of getting married (i.e., an exclusive union until death, openness to children)
NOTE that priests will not let you get married unless you have a certain "preparation" which closes many doors (above). You HAVE to admit (even put in writing, in some cases) that marriage is for life, you are open to children, plan to raise them Catholic, etc.
So the "reasons" for annulment do NOT include youthful immaturity, various character flaws, or the classic "I had no idea who he was!" No, the spouse has to be actually committing FRAUD, as in forging docuмents and identity theft, for his "deception" to invalidate the marriage.
Having faults, sins (especially those which you chose to blindly overlook!) do NOT invalidate a marriage.
Also, once a (single) child is born from the marriage, a certain group= of "doors close" as it were.
There is a reason why annulments were so rare before Vatican II.
Annulments are not routine "Catholic divorce".
They literally mean A MARRIAGE NEVER TOOK PLACE, i.e., you were shacking up the whole time.
So many Catholics embrace this, and don't shed a single bead of sweat that they were "shacking up" for years -- because now they can get remarried and stop being lonely. When they get that annulment, it's 100% relief and celebration, with hope for the future as they move on with their life -- just like a secular divorce. It's sad.
-
You could reasonably hope to get an annulment
1. If there was physical force exerted (a "shotgun marriage")
2. Deception as to the *identity* of the spouse (you thought you were marrying Alice, but her sister Betty pretended to be Alice and so you accidentally married Betty)
3. Insanity or lack of the use of reason at the time of the wedding (high or drunk while you made your vows)
4. No intention of getting married (i.e., an exclusive union until death, openness to children)
So most of the slippery nonsense, however, can be squeezed into the parantheticals of #4.
"Well, I really just got married thinking that if it didn't work out, I'd get a divorce."
And "openness to children" is a very slippery term that the Novus Ordites have used to basically allow you to NFP your way to 1 or even 0 children, as long as you were "open" to it ... if your NFP failed or even if there was a manufacturing defect in your contraceptive.
It's there that shenanigans begin to emerge, and where they use "psychological" or "emotional" immaturity to segway into, "Well, as a result, I didn't truly understand the til-death commitment of marriage."
As the objectivist, having had the errors of subjectivism drilled into my skull by none other than Bishop Williamson, and where the pupil took it farther than his master, so to speak, and I believe Bishop Williamson also to be infected with a big of subjectivism LOL ... the INTENTION has to do with the external vow, period. You take the vow, and you therefore had the INTENTION to abide by what the vow stated. That's the whole point of the public vows. There's no hidden "internal forum" secret mental-reservation intention there that overrides the public/manifest intention, the intention that was manifest to the Church. Similarly, if a priest who has internal-forum doubts about transubstantiation or doesn't believe it at all, as long as he gets up there and does what the Church does, his Mass is valid. Similarly, I hold that if you get up there and pronounce the vows, the Sacrament is valid, and if you in the depraved inner recesses of your mind were mentally contradicting it, tough beans. You're married.
-
Please excuse this question being put on the Anonymous forum. There is a reason for it.
Does anyone know what are the true, traditional grounds for a Catholic annulment?
I don't mean the chaos of the New Church annulments with their devastating results.
I mean, before Vatican II, there were true grounds for the granting of an annulment - which is, a recognition by proper Church authority and through Her proper channels, that there was no marriage bond created or established between the couple to begin with!
What were the pre-Vatican II reasons that the True Church would grant an annulment? Does anyone know those requirements?
So, what's his name? :laugh1: :jester: :laugh1:
-
So, what's his name? :laugh1: :jester: :laugh1:
This joke is a take on another one that Father Ringrose told me years ago, about Archbishop Curley of Baltimore, who was known to be a gruff, non-nonsense type of guy. Fr. Ringrose was originally ordained in the Diocese of Baltimore (he took me to his original seminary one time, a pre-V2 facility).
So, a priest went to Archbishop Curley and told him that he personally had doubts about the validity of his ordination.
Archbishop Curley listened intently to his long-drawn-out reasoning, then, after a long silence (and the torrent of words from the priest): "What's her name?"
:laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1:
-
And why are you supposed to get a civil divorce before you get an annulment in the Novus Ordo? That's pretty messed up. And I heard most annulment requests are approved.
-
Quote from: Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=75966.msg968411#msg968411) 1/11/2025, 2:22:31 PM
This joke is a take on another one that Father Ringrose told me years ag...
So, a priest went to Archbishop Curley and told him that he personally had doubts about the validity of his ordination.
Archbishop Curley listened intently to his long-drawn-out reasoning, then, after a long silence (and the torrent of words from the priest): "What's her name?"
:laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1:
I love it! No nonsense, cutting the crap, and usually correct!
-
And why are you supposed to get a civil divorce before you get an annulment in the Novus Ordo? That's pretty messed up. And I heard most annulment requests are approved.
I don't know the reasoning for that. Perhaps it creates some issues if the Church considers you not married, but then the state considers you married. I think it has to do with the civil laws, where in getting married, the priest typically signs the marriage license, and so the two are somewhat tied together. I can see there being serious issues and confusion if the two are out of sync. Conversely, you sometimes hear of individuals who get married "on paper" only for various civic benefits, i.e. citizenship, financial/tax reasons, etc. ... but who aren't really married in the eyes of the Church and of God. And, yes, most annulment requests are approved, because you just have to get the right individual to word or phrase the annulment the right way. I knew one couple who had been married for 25 years and had a fair number of children, where they were both active in their church, the woman being the secretary at the sacristy, and the man also active in the parish ... but then decided after all that time and 25 years, that they hadn't really known what they were doing and so go their pseudo-"annulment" approved. I knew them, so it wasn't some obvious reason like, "oops, we found out she had been validly married before", but more of the psychological/intention thing. Yeah, sure, as active Catholics for 25 years with multiple kids, you just had NO CLUE what marriage was.
-
I love it! No nonsense, cutting the crap, and usually correct!
It's like with our kids when they start subtly angling for what you know will end up with a request to skip shool the following day ... and then it's usually what happens.
Yes, Archbishop Curley was interesting, appointed the bishop of St. Augustine, FL at the age of 34 by St. Pius X, youngest bishop in the country. Then, when the newly-created Diocese of Washington DC was spun off from the Archdiocese of Baltimore, he was allowed to serve as the Archbishop of BOTH dioceses' at the same time, and only after his death were two separate bishops appointed. He was indeed an extremely prolific organizer, builder, establisher of schools, etc. ... but like most US bishops seemed almost entirely focused on the pragmatic, taking doctrine for granted, while Modernism spread. Bishop Williamson used to talk about this trend in the United States before Vatican II.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=75966.msg968420#msg968420)
I knew one couple who had been married for 25 years and had a fair number of children, where they were both active in their church, the woman being the secretary at the sacristy, and the man also active in the parish ... but then decided after all that time and 25 years, that they hadn't really known what they were doing and so go their pseudo-"annulment" approved. I knew them, so it wasn't some obvious reason like, "oops, we found out she had been validly married before", but more of the psychological/intention thing. Yeah, sure, as active Catholics for 25 years with multiple kids, you just had NO CLUE what marriage was.
And although their life is basically over, they've raised their family, etc. how much you want to bet ONE or BOTH of them "just so happen to" get remarried. EVEN THOUGH they are beyond childbearing years, they screwed it up SO BAD they were living in sin for 25 years, and even though they have children (talk about baggage!) and were used to a single man/woman all that time -- an individual who is A) still alive and B) almost certainly going to be actively in the childrens' life going forward.
There are plenty of *widows* that say "I'm done" and don't even try to get remarried. I realize it's lawful to get married when your spouse dies, and plenty go that route. I'm not criticizing those who do. But I can certainly understand the argument, "I've been there done that. I'm not 21 anymore. I have my children. I'm not going to complicate my life by getting married again."
That's what my Mom did when she became a widow at 54. She's 71 now, and never so much as courted anyone since my dad passed away. I don't believe she's the first widow to do this.
-
So, what's his name? :laugh1: :jester: :laugh1:
I remember a debate between someone like Scott Hahn & some formerly-Catholic priest, now a protestant professional anti-Catholic. In the Q&A after, someone asked what was it that started him [the now anti-Catholic priest] thinking the Catholic Church was wrong. He said, "First, I started to question priestly celibacy." [And I thought, just as with the example above, "hmmm... what was her name?"] "And then I started to question the need to confess sins to a priest."
He might as well have said, "I met a woman, fell into sin, & didn't want to confess it."
-
So, what's his name? (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/jester.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif)
Ha-ha indeed.
OP here. No "personal" interest involved. The question was for teaching purposes.
However, I will share that I had a niece, married in the Novus Ordo to a young man - both of them baptized Catholics and never been married before.
Eventually they sought an annulment - and it was granted on the grounds of, more or less, that they "didn't know what they were doing/didn't know what they were getting in to" at the time of the marriage.
As a married friend observed about that one, "None of us entirely 'know' what we are getting into!"
Thank you all for the responses.
-
Eventually they sought an annulment - and it was granted on the grounds of, more or less, that they "didn't know what they were doing/didn't know what they were getting in to" at the time of the marriage.
As a married friend observed about that one, "None of us entirely 'know' what we are getting into!"
I remember someone described it as "a loophole you could drive a truck through."
-
I remember someone described it as "a loophole you could drive a truck through."
THIS ^^^
-
I remember a debate between someone like Scott Hahn & some formerly-Catholic priest, now a protestant professional anti-Catholic. In the Q&A after, someone asked what was it that started him [the now anti-Catholic priest] thinking the Catholic Church was wrong. He said, "First, I started to question priestly celibacy." [And I thought, just as with the example above, "hmmm... what was her name?"] "And then I started to question the need to confess sins to a priest."
He might as well have said, "I met a woman, fell into sin, & didn't want to confess it."
THIS^^^.
If you run into ANY ex-Catholic (and they're usually the most vitriolic anti-Catholics out there), if you scratch just a little bit below the surface, it's always due to some sin they fell into and want to keep falling into and condoning. Every. Single. Time. Just like with Luther and Henry VIII, both of whom did not actually leave for "principles" of theology or doctrine, but due to moral reasons, and then only after that saw the "light" about the "bad doctrine" of the Church ... as an after-the-fact justification for and rationalization of their heresy.
As the Holy Ghost tells us, though Sacred Scriture, there's nothing new under the sun. St. Thomas explains that, since the intellect is naturally inclined toward seeking the truth, the greatest cause of error is bad will, where a bad will that doesn't WANT to accept the truth influences the intellect into rejecting it (whereas naturally it would cling to it when found).
-
And although their life is basically over, they've raised their family, etc. how much you want to bet ONE or BOTH of them "just so happen to" get remarried. EVEN THOUGH they are beyond childbearing years ...
You win the prize. Yes, they BOTH "remarried" fairly quickly after the "annulment". LOL, one of them, the man, went to an Eastern Rite church and the priest was telling them what they had to say, and one of the things both of the couple had to say was, "I never never been married before to someone else who is still living." And the priest nodded for him to repeat it when even the "groom" was confused about how to answer. :laugh1: Both of them deep down, despite their denials, know full well that the one they're with right now is not their spouse and that they're living in sin. Hopefully they repent before they die.
Well, presumably they NOW understand what marriage TRULY is (vs. before), since to make the judgment that they didn't know what it was before assumes that you know what it is that you didn't know, i.e. the true nature of marriage.
-
If you run into ANY ex-Catholic (and they're usually the most vitriolic anti-Catholics out there), if you scratch just a little bit below the surface, it's always due to some sin they fell into and want to keep falling into and condoning. Every. Single. Time. Just like with Luther and Henry VIII, both of whom did not actually leave for "principles" of theology or doctrine, but due to moral reasons, and then only after that saw the "light" about the "bad doctrine" of the Church ... as an after-the-fact justification for and rationalization of their heresy.
Makes me think of the vocal crowd who leave for Orthodoxy, or who popesplain ad nauseum...
While ^^^ may certainly be true generally and in an individual sense, diametrically, to me it seems the Original Sin was rather a species of heresy vs. anything moral.
God revealed not to eat the forbidden fruit lest they die,
The devil tempted Eve to disobey by 1st inducing her to doubt what God had revealed,
She had to 1st believe the lie against the truth by consenting to doubt before she committed the act.
"Through the devil sin and death entered the world." who was, "a liar and murderer from the beginning".
Thus commenced one giant cycle birthed from heresy leading to moral faults, leading to more heresies, leading to more moral faults, leading to...etc.
It started with heresy, and it will only end once all heresy has been destroyed.
"Rejoice O Virgin Mary, thou alone hast put all heresies in the world." 300 days.
-
And although their life is basically over, they've raised their family, etc. how much you want to bet ONE or BOTH of them "just so happen to" get remarried. EVEN THOUGH they are beyond childbearing years, they screwed it up SO BAD they were living in sin for 25 years, and even though they have children (talk about baggage!) and were used to a single man/woman all that time -- an individual who is A) still alive and B) almost certainly going to be actively in the childrens' life going forward.
There are plenty of *widows* that say "I'm done" and don't even try to get remarried. I realize it's lawful to get married when your spouse dies, and plenty go that route. I'm not criticizing those who do. But I can certainly understand the argument, "I've been there done that. I'm not 21 anymore. I have my children. I'm not going to complicate my life by getting married again."
That's what my Mom did when she became a widow at 54. She's 71 now, and never so much as courted anyone since my dad passed away. I don't believe she's the first widow to do this.
A lot of women do fine after they become a widow, specially if they are over 50 or so. Men usually don't. Even when they are over 60 or even 70, they will find another woman, usually to ruin the remainder of their life.
Just the other day I met a man whose wife died of cancer a few years ago. He is probably around 60. He is now living (not married) with another woman. She gave me the impression of being very bossy and feminist. I bet that she is a divorcee. Terrible decision, in my opinion, even if he had married with her and adultery was not an issue.
-
Also, once a (single) child is born from the marriage, a certain group= of "doors close" as it were.
Actually, that's not correct.
But if you obtain an annulment and there are children, then they will be deemed illegitimate, because yes, an annulment means there never was a marriage.
-
THIS^^^.
If you run into ANY ex-Catholic (and they're usually the most vitriolic anti-Catholics out there), if you scratch just a little bit below the surface, it's always due to some sin they fell into and want to keep falling into and condoning. Every. Single. Time. Just like with Luther and Henry VIII, both of whom did not actually leave for "principles" of theology or doctrine, but due to moral reasons, and then only after that saw the "light" about the "bad doctrine" of the Church ... as an after-the-fact justification for and rationalization of their heresy.
I would have to say very often, but not every single time, no!
I personally know of someone who lost the faith because of "intellectual" reasons, read books of Richard Dawkins... Lives a perfectly moral life, but of course does not attend Sunday Mass. Is more charitable than a lot of Catholics I know, too. No sin they fell into, just read the wrong books, even though I know that's a sin in itself ;-)
-
Actually, that's not correct.
But if you obtain an annulment and there are children, then they will be deemed illegitimate, because yes, an annulment means there never was a marriage.
No, the Church creates the legal fiction that such children are legitimate. As I understand it, in some countries, such children have to be legitimized for civil reasons (inheritance and so on).
In one sense, there are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents. It's not the child's fault.
-
The vast majority of annulments post-Vatican II are given for reasons of "defective consent". Before Vatican II, I think other reasons (rarer today), like not believing matrimony is a sacrament or there being impediments discovered after marriage, made up a higher percentage of the annulment cases.
-
No, the Church creates the legal fiction that such children are legitimate. As I understand it, in some countries, such children have to be legitimized for civil reasons (inheritance and so on).
In one sense, there are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents. It's not the child's fault.
I'm not sure how the Church currently handles these things.
But according to St. Thomas Aquinas, if the parties to the "marriage" were truly ignorant of an actual impediment to the marriage and an annulment was granted after children were born, then the children would be legitimate in the eyes of the Church.
However, if the parties to the "marriage" were aware of the impediment and proceed with the simulated "marriage" anyway, then the children would be illegitimate in the eyes of the Church.
See Aquinas's discussion of this topic here:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q68.A1
-
I'm not sure how the Church currently handles these things.
But according to St. Thomas Aquinas, if the parties to the "marriage" were truly ignorant of an actual impediment to the marriage and an annulment was granted after children were born, then the children would be legitimate in the eyes of the Church.
However, if the parties to the "marriage" were aware of the impediment and proceed with the simulated "marriage" anyway, then the children would be illegitimate in the eyes of the Church.
See Aquinas's discussion of this topic here:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q68.A1
Thanks for the information. I did not realize that legitimization of children of a putative marriage went all the way back to Aquinas.