I disagree completely.
In your experience, what are the most commonly claimed grounds for annulment, and why do you contend they are polite fictions? Be specific, please.
Agreed. But MsWhatsit contrasted her mom’s view with her mom’s actions with respect to marriage and divorce under Catholic law, so it’s also reasonable to assume the discussion was intended to focus on Catholic understanding of marriage as a concept.
Slightly incorrect.
A decree of nullity is a finding, a recognition, that no valid marriage ever existed in the first place – that the seemingly valid marriage was void ab initio.
So it’s true that if marriage 3 was undertaken (outside the church) prior to the finding of annullment with respect to marriage 2, this would be a diriment impediment to marriage 3.
But the subsequent annullment would show that the impediment never really existed – marriage 2 never happened. Marriage 3 (assuming Husband 3 was baptized) is then valid, although suffering from a defect of form, because it was celebrated outside the Church, and thus not licit. (If Husband 3 was not baptized at all, then another set of rules applies – detaisl on request.)
A convalidation, a ceremony in which the valid but illict marriage is recognized, can cure the defect. Interestingly enough, the existance of a convalidated marriage removes many possible grounds for later annulment. In fact, I have never heard of a convalidated marriage being later successfully anulled.
Really? You think MsW’sM’s marriages have all just happened to come up defective under Church doctrine, and this had nothing to do with the convenience and preferences of MsW’sM herself? That the nullities were not decreed because the people involved wanted a divorce?
:dubious:
I’m not sure exactly what grounds Mom is trying to base Annulment 3 on, but I know she had my aunt write a statement to the effect that my stepdad lied about wanting to convert to Catholicism (he was Baptist but converted during their marriage) which IMO is BS. He was always totally on board with conversion, went to all the classes dutifully, went to church regularly most of the time they were married, etc. I think they’re really grasping at straws.
So your aunt is lying in an affidavit to the CHURCH in order for your mother to have her marriage annulled and GAY PEOPLE will ruin civil marriage?
Obviously, nullity is only decreed if one of the spouse seeks it, and they only seek it - typically - if they want a divorce. In that sense, it was only decreed because they wanted a divorce. (In fact, they have to actually get a divorce before an annulment can be granted.)
But that only means that wanting a divorces is a necessary condition for a decree of nullity, not that it’s a sufficient condition. You do, in fact, have to establish grounds for annulment, and “I want a divorce” is not enough on its own. In another thread, somebody quotes the figure of 78% of applications being granted, which suggests that 18% of Catholics who have divorced, or intend to, and apply for an annulment don’t get it. And presumably there is another cohort who want an annulment but are advised that they have no grounds, and so spare themselves the trouble and expense of an application. I’ve no idea how big that cohort might be.
Your assessment of the situation matches my own.
There was no sin of fornication. Every time they did the nasty, presumably they thought they were in a valid marriage. Doing it after they became aware of the impediment(s) would be a sin but they probably weren’t in the mood.
Damn! Missed the edit. Let me clarify . . .
I mean “18%” in the sense of 22%, obviously.
That’s not remotely what I said, nor is it a required conclusion if one disagrees completely with Princhester’s statement.
Someone whose marriage was not valid, but has no interest in ending it, never seeks to challenge the marriage’s validity. So the two cases are not mutually exclusive: the mere fact that getting a decree of nullity meets your “convenience and preferences” is not evidence that the decree itself or the grounds thereof are a fiction, polite or otherwise.
Once he convert, did they convalidate the union?
I will say, with no disrespect intended to your mom, that if she’s literally and knowingly seeking out someone who will lie for her in order to get a decree of nullity, the problem is not with the Church, but her. A sacramental marriage exists, or not, under God’s law. Of course the Church can be fooled by false testimony into issuing a decree of nullity for a marriage that was in fact sacramentally valid. An innocent victim of this mistake commits no sin by believing s/he has a decree of nullity and remarrying. A person who procures the decree by fraud in order to remarry has no such excuse. S/he KNOWS there was no annullment.
Which is where we came in. In the very first post in this thread MsWhatsit accuses her mother, not the Catholic church or Catholics in general, of hypocrisy.
I was joking a bit there, and maybe you are too, but in seriousness, does Catholic doctrine really hold that thinking you’re in a marriage means no taint of sin can attach? Does similar logic work on other points? Is homosexuality no sin–requiring no confession, no penance, so on–if one is not aware at the time that Lola is a man?
Yes, yes. But the point there is whether the functional, not doctrinal, purpose of nullities is “to permit the Catholic Church to allow [some] divorce while not allowing it.” Given that, as you say, the people involved have to seek it out–the Church isn’t running marriage qualification inspectors to make sure any old marriage doesn’t have these same problem conditions–Princhester’s conclusion seems so obvious and unavoidable that it’s almost unnecessary to say it. Or so I would have thought.
But if the nullities, and the bases for same, were important in themselves, and not exclusively for the function of allowing (some) divorces of convenience, then why aren’t marriages ever examined for these faults except when the couple requests it?
Yes, let me clarify my position here. While I am in fact an ex-Catholic, I am not the type of ex-Catholic that is bitter and angry and thinks the Church is evil. I do think the church rules on annulments are stupid, and I think their official position on gay marriage (is it even an official position?) sucks, but apart from that, hey, you want to be Catholic, go for it.
My problem specifically is with my mom, who professes loudly and at length that she is so devoted to her religion and considers it the most important thing in her life, but then does sneaky end runs around the rules whenever it suits her purposes, and yet is using the Church as her defense for being homophobic.
The one thing I will say about my mom is that she is very, very good at convincing herself of things. I’m quite sure that she’s bent things in her own mind so that my stepdad really didn’t want to convert to Catholicism or whatever. And if it turned out that those grounds for annulment weren’t going to work, I’m sure she could convince herself that he really didn’t want to have kids - or really didn’t [insert valid reason for annulment here].
It’s just as well I’m not a practicing Catholic anymore, because that saves me from having to tell her no when she wants ME to write up some of these falsified statements for the Church.
When did the RCC gain *judicial *powers? :dubious: They can make whatever rules they like for their own ceremonies, but why should anyone else give a rip?
Remarkably enough, that view of the “main purpose” of marriage simply never emerged in any historical record until extending it to gays came into serious discussion. Unfortunately, the fact that marriage is not and has never been limited only to opposite-sex couples in their fertile years sort of undermines even that claim, no matter that it’s the only rationalization the anti’s have come up with that has even superficial plausibility.
True. But for the whole inheritance, child support, medical proxy decision making thing, yes, you do.
ISTM when the history of this latest chapter of the advance of civil rights is written, one of the key events that tipped the minds of the American public will be declared to have been that Britney Spears drunken Vegas hookup.
True dat. Of course, the tidbit about her mom actively suborning false testimony in support of her quest for a decree of nullity was not mentioned in the OP, and knowing it considerably changes my opinion.
As a general proposition, yes – sin requires advertance of the will and a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act.
Your specific example is tough to work into this framework, though, unless your name is Bernard Boursicot.
No. It may be that the RESULT is to allow quasi-divorce, but that’s not it’s purpose. The purpose is to implement the conditions for marriage as described scripturally.
Because it’s impractical and intrusive, and because a couple may ratify a defect by continuing the marriage after the defect becomes known.
Anecdotal evidence for the proposition that it’s not merely to “allow divorce:”
That is an interesting question. From a point of view of the immediate incentives you are correct. If allowing people to continue to receive marital privileges when they no longer have dependent children would be a useful incentive isn’t obvious to me. It is kind of like salary versus pension incentives.
Some European actually go the direct subsidy route to encourage families with baby bounties and free child care.
OTOH, I think if there are no longer any minor children, there should a simplified procedure for dissolving a marriage. I was reading that in Japan that if two people want a divorce and there is no issue with child support or property, that all you you have to do is fill out a form and file it at the prefecture office.