Author Topic: Has anyone here had an annulment? (Read 1610 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** October 06, 2016, 02:39:39 PM »

Has anyone here ever had an annulment?

Was it for defective consent? (>95% of annulments granted are for defective consent.)
Or a diriment impediment?

The canon lawyer Ed Peters told me he's familiar with a few annulment cases involving the SSPX, in which a judgment was made on whether the SSPX constituted a schismatic sect (I think the judge ruled it isn't).

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 06, 2016, 03:08:11 PM »

I do not accept Novus Ordo annulments as valid. I think nearly all of them are bogus and if I was a traditional priest I would refuse the sacraments to all of those who got an annulment and then remarried because I believe they are living in adultery. Call me harsh if you want but I believe there are reasons there were only a few hundred annulments a year in the US before Vatican II and afterwards there were tens of thousands.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 06, 2016, 03:19:09 PM »

Quote from: Guest

I do not accept Novus Ordo annulments as valid. I think nearly all of them are bogus and if I was a traditional priest I would refuse the sacraments to all of those who got an annulment and then remarried because I believe they are living in adultery. Call me harsh if you want but I believe there are reasons there were only a few hundred annulments a year in the US before Vatican II and afterwards there were tens of thousands.

Yes, I'm certain almost all of the defective consent annulments are bogus, but I'm sure even in trad circles that there have been situations in which a diriment impediment is discovered after marriage. Certainly trad priests have dealt with this.

Do the SSPX and sed groups issue their own "annulments" (i.e., declarations of the nullity of a marriage) outside the Novus Ordo legal system?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #3 on:** October 06, 2016, 04:04:27 PM »

Quote from: Guest

I do not accept Novus Ordo annulments as valid. I think nearly all of them are bogus and if I was a traditional priest I would refuse the sacraments to all of those who got an annulment and then remarried because I believe they are living in adultery. Call me harsh if you want but I believe there are reasons there were only a few hundred annulments a year in the US before Vatican II and afterwards there were tens of thousands.

My cousin received an annulment from the n.o. after six years and three children. I'm not sure of the technical reason, but I do know she left with the children upon discovering her husband was not only having an affair, but actually had two children with the other woman prior to their marriage and that she was pregnant with child #3 at the time of marriage to my cousin! Mr. X. managed to hide his philandering because his job took him across the country three days a week. Given these circuмstances, I do believe her annulment was for genuine cause. It would have been granted prior to Vat. II. She has not remarried, but Mr. X. has---and not to the other woman; to someone else! (No wonder kids are so mixed up and confused!)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #4 on:** October 06, 2016, 04:08:35 PM »

The SSPX and annulments

Connected with the Church's mission to care for the salvation of souls, is the matter of annulments. Unfortunately there are many misconceptions connected with an annulment—for example, an annulment is not the "Catholic form of divorce" but rather the declaration of an ecclesiastical tribunal that a marriage never took place.

Because of the state of necessity caused by the post-conciliar crisis, the Society of St. Pius X has been required for the good of souls to establish its own annulment tribunals. This has led to some concerns and these frequent questions:

Has the SSPX been granting annulments?
Isn't this a schismatic act?
Are all annulments granted by the diocesan tribunals invalid?
To provide some clarification about the important topic of annulments, we offer the following texts:

The annulment crisis in the post-concilar Church
Questions about our Canonical Commision
The legitimacy and status of our tribunals
An approach to declarations of nullity

http://sspx.org/en/sspx-and-annulments

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 06, 2016, 04:48:35 PM »

Quote from: Guest

My cousin received an annulment from the n.o. after six years and three children. I'm not sure of the technical reason, but I do know she left with the children upon discovering her husband was not only having an affair, but actually had two children with the other woman prior to their marriage and that she was pregnant with child #3 at the time of marriage to my cousin! Mr. X. managed to hide his philandering because his job took him across the country three days a week. Given these circuмstances, I do believe her annulment was for genuine cause. It would have been granted prior to Vat. II. She has not remarried, but Mr. X. has---and not to the other woman; to someone else! (No wonder kids are so mixed up and confused!)

Yes, a prior bond is a diriment impediment. That's clearly not a defective consent case.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 06, 2016, 04:55:02 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Because of the state of necessity caused by the post-conciliar crisis, the Society of St. Pius X has been required for the good of souls to establish its own annulment tribunals.

Does the SSPX re-judge Novus Ordo declarations of nullity?

poche · « **Reply #7 on:** October 10, 2016, 11:23:07 PM »

An example of a defect of consent would be if force were used to obtain that consent. If force or even the threat of force is present then the marriage is invalid.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2016, 01:03:09 PM »

Today, almost every person can be granted an annulment as a man or a woman can say that they either:

(1) they felt forced to leave an unbearable situation with their parents (or roommates in an apartment) and so jumped at the opportunity to marry and establish their own home; and therefore

(2) they lacked full consent.

Or that they lacked maturity, as shown by indecisiveness, and were not able to make the full consent of commitment and stability required of a married man or women. This is not surprising at all as many parents today are neither educating their children in the faith, nor schooling them in the virtues. How can children today make virtuous decisions?

Quote

As we grow in virtue, it becomes easier for us to recognize truth and choose the good, and thus we truly experience the freedom of the children of God (cf. Jn. 8:32; Gal. 5:1). When we choose evil we abuse our freedom and fall prey to the slavery of sin (cf. Catechism, no. 1733). St. Paul helps to put this in focus for us:

“[W]hatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Phil. 4:8).

Prudence

Prudence is the cardinal virtue that “disposes the practical reason to discern, in every circuмstance, our true good and to choose the right means for achieving it” (Catechism, no. 1835). Prudence enables us to choose good means to a good end. It guides our practical decision making in individual, concrete circuмstances and provides for effective execution once a decision is reached. With the help of prudence, we learn from our experiences and correctly apply moral principles to real-life situations (Catechism, no. 1806).

The three stages of prudence acting properly are deliberation, judgment, and decision. Note that hesitation is appropriate when it comes to deliberation: One can and should consider all the facts and moral principles that bear on the situation and be open to human and divine counsel. However, a considered decision should be performed swiftly. For example, if a person in authority asks us to do something that may be inappropriate, we should consider whether it would be prudent to obey. However, as soon as we discern that such a request constitutes a legitimate exercise of authority, our decision to obey should
be promptly acted upon.

Errors in judgment can creep in through defects of prudence or through “false prudence.” Defects include thoughtlessness, rashness, negligence, indecisiveness, and inconstancy in execution. False prudence takes two forms. One is the giving in to the “prudence of the flesh,” thus making decisions based solely on serving the goods of the body, which St. Paul criticizes as being displeasing to God and leading to death (cf. Rom. 8:6-8). The other form is what St. Thomas calls astutia, which is often translated as “cunning” or “craftiness.” Astutia is concerned more with “tactics” than living in the light. True prudence isn’t only concerned with a good end, but also good means to that end. Conversely, astutia is the insidious temperament of the intriguer who will use any means to obtain the good.

http://www.cuf.org/2005/02/morality-is-habit-forming-the-cardinal-virtues/

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #9 on:** October 11, 2016, 01:57:14 PM »

So, to understand correctly, these cases Peters mentioned re: the SSPX were essentially appealing to the Pauline privilege or the diriment impediment of disparity of cult?

I wasn't aware whether or not the Novus Ordo still regarded either of these concepts. But of course the SSPX, even if undoubtedly schismatic, would not factor into nullity. If both parties are baptized and consent is not lacking (and there are no other unusual diriment impediments like abduction, force, etc.) then the marriage is valid.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 11, 2016, 02:29:32 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

So, to understand correctly, these cases Peters mentioned re: the SSPX were essentially appealing to the Pauline privilege or the diriment impediment of disparity of cult?

I wasn't aware whether or not the Novus Ordo still regarded either of these concepts.

Regarding disparity of cult, it is diriment impediment in the '83 Code:

1983 Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #11 on:** October 11, 2016, 04:10:32 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

So, to understand correctly, these cases Peters mentioned re: the SSPX were essentially appealing to the Pauline privilege or the diriment impediment of disparity of cult?

I wasn't aware whether or not the Novus Ordo still regarded either of these concepts.

The NO most certainly recognizes the Pauline Privilege. From the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Quote

Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.

§2. The non-baptized party is considered to depart if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without aVront to the Creator unless the baptized party, after baptism was received, has given the other a just cause for departing.

Can. 1144 §1. For the baptized party to contract a new marriage validly, the non-baptized party must always be interrogated whether:

1/ he or she also wishes to receive baptism;

2/ he or she at least wishes to cohabit peacefully with the baptized party without aVront to the Creator.

§2. This interrogation must be done after baptism. For a grave cause, however, the local ordinary can permit the interrogation to be done before baptism or can even dispense from the interrogation either before or after baptism provided that it is evident at least by a summary and extrajudicial process that it cannot be done or would be useless.

Can. 1145 §1. The interrogation is regularly to be done on the authority of the local ordinary of the converted party.

This ordinary must grant the other spouse a period of time to respond if the spouse seeks it, after having been advised, however, that his or her silence will be considered a negative response if the period passes without effect.

§2. Even an interrogation made privately by the converted party is valid and indeed licit if the form prescribed above cannot be observed.

§3. In either case, the fact that the interrogation was done and its outcome must be established legitimately in the external forum.

Can. 1146 The baptized party has the right to contract a new marriage with a Catholic party:

1/ if the other party responded negatively to the interrogation or if the interrogation had been omitted legitimately;

2/ if the non-baptized party, already interrogated or not, at first persevered in peaceful cohabitation without aVront to the Creator but then departed without a just cause, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. ? 1144 and ? 1145.

Can. 1147 For a grave cause, however, the local ordinary can allow a baptized party who uses the pauline privilege to contract marriage with a non-Catholic party, whether baptized or not baptized; the prescripts of the canons about mixed marriages are also to be observed.

Author Topic: Has anyone here had an annulment? (Read 1610 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus