CathInfo.com

As I understand it, you were either validly married on the day or not.  If not, you are no more married than an unmarried person.  The tribunal looks at the circuмstances and behavior in your marriage to determine the likely state of mind up to and on the day of your wedding.  They cannot ever know for certain they just work on the balance of probabilites like any legal judgement.

A man could have a child or many children with a live in girlfriend of 10 years and be free to marry if he leaves her.  A woman could have illegitemate children from many different men and be free to marry.

A priest who had abandonned his vocation could have a wedding have 7 children and would not be married.  That is the nature of the sacramental bond. It either exists or it does not.

The marriage is determined to have never been real in the first place.  Therefore pragmatic considerations such as the welfare of children should not be part of that decisioning process or if they are, ONLY, in the sense that they give evidence to the state of mind up to and on the wedding day.

This is why it is ridiculous for Mel Gibson or Bud MacFarlane Jr to apply for or consider an annulment.  Because their married life suggests they were completely married.

Someone in a sexless marriage, however, suggests they (one or both) have no clue what marriage is about, its PRIMARY purpose.  One child being born because his wife agreed to sex for one night, and then went back to refusing sex would demonstrate a completely perverted understanding of the duties of marriage.

I wonder what would happen if the Church banned annulments.  Simply said, approach marriage with extreme caution and if it all goes horribly wrong there is no safety net.

Plenty of people would of course just civilly marry outside the Church.  I know lots of Trads who came back to the Church age 60+ after their glory days were behind them or their partner dies.  Matthew discusses such a couple above.

People would probably get married a lot later.

Would there be a lot more engagements broken off?

There is no safety net for Hell after all.  You find yourself there and you are burning for all eternity.

The past had very different social mores and stigmas.  Life was harder in general and people probably thought about their illnesses, death of friends or whether they would make it through the winter.  Wives regularly died and men who could afford to support another didn't find it difficult to find someone who needed a roof over their head.  Much the same in some poor countries today.  Just saw a docuмentary about poor Chinese farmers importing Indonesian peasant women to marry.

I wonder what would happen if the Church banned annulments.  Simply said, approach marriage with extreme caution and if it all goes horribly wrong there is no safety net.

Well, they effectively WERE banned before Vatican II.  What, were there maybe a small handful of annulments granted every year worldwide ... apart from the cut-and-dry cases where it was found that the person had been in a prior marriage or something?  This nonsense about psychological impediments and "immaturity", etc. was not even entertained.  That's what the priest did in marriage preparation, made sure that the couple knew exactly what they were getting into so that by the time they said their vows they knew full well what it entailed.