The Catholic Church's practice of granting annulments is based on the idea that there are certain situations in which something prevents a valid marriage from coming into existence. The things doing the blocking are known as "impediments," and a variety of them are recognized in canon law.
When one or more impediments exists in a particular case and blocks a valid marriage from coming into existence, that union–upon due review by the Church–can be declared null or "annulled." An annulment, thus, is a finding of fact that there was some impediment that kept the marriage from coming into existence.
Annulments generally are not practiced in the Protestant community (though there are some civil-law annulments), and the concept of impediments is often unfamiliar to our Protestant brethren.
Recently I was asked how to respond to the claim that there are impediments to marriage is unbiblical.
It is true that the term "impediment" is not used in Scripture in regard to marriage. This is similar to the term "Trinity," which also is not used in Scripture. In both cases the term is a later way of making explicit something that is implicit in Scripture itself.
There is more than one type of marriage impediment, and they relate to Scripture in different ways. One type is the natural law impediment. Marriage corresponds to a certain natural law reality (a partnership between a man and a woman of the whole of life oriented to the good of the spouses and, if possible, the procreation and education of offspring). Marriage has certain properties (e.g., unity, indissolubility, the making licit of sexual love). These correspond to both the natural law and the biblical understanding of marriage. They are presupposed whenever Scripture talks about marriage.
It follows that if someone–in attempting a marriage–has fundamentally excluded one of these criteria then they are not agreeing to be married in the sense that God's law defines the institution.
This is also why homosexual marriages are impossible. Two men or two women cannot agree to have between them the same kind of union that is possible for a man and a woman. The fact that the parties are of the same sex creates an impediment to their ability to marry each other.
The idea of homosexual marriage was, of course, unthinkable to the biblical authors, and it was not an idea being entertained in their society. (Though homosexual behavior was common in Greek society, they at least understood that marriage was between a man and a woman). Consequently, this is impediment is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture, but it is surely implicit in the biblical vision of what marriage is.
Another impediment which is clearly implied in Scripture is the existence of a prior marriage bond. If you are already married to one person, you are not free to marry another. This is explicit in the teaching of both Jesus (Mark 10) and Paul (Romans 7), with both indicating that the attempt to marry someone when you are already married will result in adultery.
It is clear that, in the minds of Jesus and Paul, being married to one person creates an impediment (something that blocks or impedes) one from marrying another person. The term "impediment" may be more recent, but the concept is clearly there.
Similar examples of impediments could be given–what if you're too closely related to each other so that there would be incest (can you marry one of your parents?) or what if you were severely retarded or mentally ill and did not understand what you were doing?
It is hard to imagine the biblical authors, who certainly shared the biblical vision of marriage, saying that such marriages would be valid. If such marriages are not valid then the factors preventing them from being valid are, by definition, impediments.
The question then would not be whether impediments exist but what impediments are there.
As I point out in my booklet, Annulments: What You Need to Know, the Church has a pastoral responsibility created by the teaching of Jesus on the permanence of marriage not to simply rubber-stamp any union. To do so would be to downplay or deny what Jesus taught. It is out of a sense of duty to her Lord, and of pastoral responsibility to the faithful, that the Church undertakes the difficult work of examining particular marriage situations to protect the validity of marriages.
dear jimmy, love that last sentence.HOG WASH. why doesnt the church undertake the diffiCULT work of examining the particulars of the churches bahavior and stop hiding behind CANON LAW.Jesus would have your take of the children, first and formost
are prosecuting pedifile preist impediments unbiblical? its also against the real law. all cathlics should be in prison
Those who hate just HAVE to express that hatred, I guess.
When I grow up, I want to be a troll.
(sarcasm – I never want to grow up)
dear bill, do you know the things going on in your beloved organization. if so, have you stood up for the abused children or do you stand with the protecters of the pedifiles. all evil needs is that good men do nothing.
i suppose gregory speaks for all of you
In the fevered brain of the staunch anti-Catholic, “pedophile” is a magic word that means they automatically win any argument, even one totally unrelated to the priest abuse scandal.
Just like screaming “What about Auschwitz?!?!?” means you automatically win any argument you may have with a German.
See? Isn’t that easier than thinking?
Now, back to your regularly scheduled blogging…
How could a happily married couple ever be sure if their marriage was in fact valid? How would they know if there were some undiscovered impediment or two that would make their seemingly happy marriage, in actuality, null and void? Should a happily married couple request an annulment investigation to be on the safe side?
OK, who let the Ku Klux Klan post in the combox?
Jay D: If you’re happily married, you don’t need to request an annulment investigation. The Church presumes you are validly married. In order to even file the paperwork for an annulment, you need to get a civil divorce first. So if you’re happily married, you cannot even get an annulment.
How is it that two people become married in the first place? All this talk of impediments seem to indicate a higher reality of marriage beyond civil recognition, but you haven’t really defined what that is.
BobCatholic: I don’t think impediments work that way. Impediments are objective facts that, in themselves, keep a marriage from being valid, whether anyone presumes the marriage to be valid or not. Let’s say one one person in the marriage hid the fact that they were a close relative from their spouse, the Priest and everybody. The marriage can be presumed to be valid all day long, but it isn’t valid because of the objective impediment of being close relatives.
It seems to me a person couldn’t ever really know their marriage was really valid.
Thanks for this! We’re actually going through the process of untangling the mess of a first civil marriage and having a (real) Catholic marriage.
The entire Catholic process for marriage really impresses upon a couple the gravity of the commitment they’re making. I applaud it. I wish my own parents had needed this and my grandparents and my husband’s parents. This isn’t a case of the Church being litigious or unfair or “un-biblical”. It’s a case of the Church protecting people from harm–particularly innocent children.
Can people have impediments? Oh, yes, yes, yes they can.
Marriage needs to be treated seriously. I’m glad we’re raising our children as Catholics. I think by making our marriage bond real in the eyes of the Church, converting, and instilling this value in our children, we may well end up ironing out a lot of damage that has been done by the past two generations in both of our families by divorce, substance abuse, and infidelity.
Thank God. 🙂
To those who disagree, dislike the Church and its teachings, etc., they have my sympathy and prayers. That’s a hard road to walk. Wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
It seems to me a person couldn’t ever really know their marriage was really valid.
Why not? Are the number of people who enter into marriage under false pretenses large? Probably not. Could priest do a better job of making sure there are no impediments before the marriage? Perhaps. Most of the major impediments are easy to discern.
The only one I have a problem with is the psychological impediment, since I interpret the Law a bit more rigorously than some. I think people with depression or even some types of personality disorders, depending on circumstances, have enough of a psychological ability to form a bond (ligament) that the marriage, although it may be under stress, would probably be valid. I think modern psychologists have made some annulments too easy. I know of an expert in personality disorders (a researcher in the area) who has told me that many of the people who have been referred to her studies by other non-specialist psychologists have been mis-classified. Given that, I have doubts about the reliability of some psychological evaluations in the annulment process.
That is not to say that there are not genuine psychological impediments to marriage, but that some of the current psychological theories being presented to some tribunals to justify the annulments are way too tentative to be in use. Some of the recent work on personality disorders is showing that the disorder can be highly sensitive to environment. If the afflicted person can meet the right person, it may actually stabilize the illness and in this case, I think a marriage bond can be formed. If they meet the wrong, person, well, that’s another story. The problem is that simply saying that no bond is possible because of a personality disorder is not fair (and I have seen at least one site by a priest/psychologist that, to my mind, suggests that this is the case).
Putting together mis-diagnosis and over-statements, I think the psychological impediment should be used less frequently than it is. Most of the other impediments are more factual and less judgmental. Everybody has their quirks and I’ve seen enough people scarred for life by bad psychological diagnoses that I would be really careful about using forensic psychological evaluations for annulments because making a post hoc evaluation of a person’s state on the day of their wedding is not something I would want the garden-variety clinical psychologist doing.
The presumption of validity that BobCatholic mentions is true. It is just that: a presumption, not a fact. Investigations have to start from some basis and a presumption of validity is a reasonable place to start. One can scruple in this area.
How is it that two people become married in the first place?
It depends on what sense you mean married: civilly, naturally, sacramentally? Normally, the vow (or promise) forms a bonding of wills which is then ratified in the marital act. If the will is defective (as in a coerced marriage) or there is lack of knowledge about the nature of marriage (a person does not understand that marriage is oriented towards procreation and thinks they can be married and deliberately not have children) or if the marital act cannot be performed even once or if there is some external impediment (too closely related), then no bond can be formed.
The Chicken
Why not? Are the number of people who enter into marriage under false pretenses large? Probably not. Could priest do a better job of making sure there are no impediments before the marriage? Perhaps. Most of the major impediments are easy to discern.
The Chicken
Yet marriages get annulled. I would think that every couple who got an annulment thought, on their honeymoon, that their marriage was valid, and the Church, at that time, presumed their marriage was valid.
Since people can’t see into the future, what assurance does any couple on their honeymoon have that someday, in the future, they will not get a civil divorce, have an annulment proceeding and find out the marriage they thought was valid wasn’t?
What assurances are there to the person who thinks to himself, “Is my marriage really valid? Are there any impediments to my marriage?”
I personally would want to get that cleared up right away. Get a Priest to sign off on it ASAP “certified, impediment-free marriage”, like before the honeymoon even. Not after a civil divorce. I don’t like loose ends. Why would I want to spend my time living with someone who wasn’t really my wife?
I remember hearing somewhere that a large percentage of the annulments granted by marriage tribunals these days were given to Protestants who had been married and divorced, and now wished to marry a Catholic. The Protestant understanding of divorce and remarriage – at least in practice! – is sufficiently distant from the Catholic one to make a reasonable argument for lack of consent to what a sacramental marriage is.
My annulment was granted on these grounds. I was married as a Protestant, with the understanding/expectation that divorce and remarriage were possible and permissible. [My marriage foundered at roughly the same time as I came into the Catholic Church and I decided to apply for an annulment “on spec”, so as not to form a new relationship, only to discover I wasn’t free to marry.]
The proper time to check for impediments is when a couple first approaches their pastor to arrange their marriage.
While visiting with a priest friend at his office, I looked over a form our diocese requires to be used when arranging marriages. Most of the questions had to do with impediments.
A priest I knew in rural New Mexico, where some of the villages in his parish are hundreds of years old said he often had to check to see how closely the prospective bride and groom were related to each other. When people live in small, somewhat isolated communities, it is inevitable that they might have a few common ancestors.
I had a teacher who was a former army chaplain. A rather young non-Catholic soldier wanted to marry a Catholic woman who was significantly older, and had been a religious for a long part of her life. The chaplain had some misgivings about the planned marriage, and made a point of documenting his concerns when he drew up the paperwork for the wedding.
Again, most issues should be discovered and dealt with before the marriage even takes place.
Again, most issues should be discovered and dealt with before the marriage even takes place.
http://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkj-egmNzYRpHayuqhSk0ugg1azYqD7fCU
Most issues? As in, “Is my marriage free from impediments?” “Probably.”
To quote a Valvoline commercial, “sometimes probably doesn’t cut it.”
Other than Henry VIII can anyone name a convert and/or rich and famous person who has been denied an annulment/s?
Ooo! Oooo!! Robert the Pious of France!!!
“Other than Henry VIII can anyone name a convert and/or rich and famous person who has been denied an annulment?”
If such rich and famous persons live in the United States, they would probably not be denied. Middle class persons, ditto. Poor ones, ditto. The reputation of United States marriage tribunals is that they tend to be very, very, very, very inclined to grant annulments to whoever wants one. “All comers” is the expression I’ve heard used. I don’t think “rich” and “famous” makes much difference
Jay D: Great questions! We have had the exact same questions whenever we discuss annulments.
My mother in law and several others that I know could EASILY get an annulment. One person in particular was told by priests that an annulment would certainly be granted for their case. They stuck it out. They’ll probably be “married” for 54 more years.
The illogical point here is that we very well could not have a valid marriage due to something we can’t see. I too would like to have our marriage “checked” for validity.
Could you speak to this or to Jay D’s questions, Jimmy?
I suppose it comes down to the system in place. On retreat with the late holy priest, Fr. Hardon, I heard him harshly criticize the annulment process in the USA.
Thanks.
>It seems to me a person couldn’t ever really know their marriage was really valid.
Your question is puzzling to me.
Are you looking for reasons/excuses to leave your wife?
Is your wife looking for reasons/excuses to leave you?
If the answer is “no” to both: Your marriage is valid.
And if THAT answer is not good enough, then go and do a renewal of vows ceremony in front of a lot of people in a Catholic Church.
Twenty times.
Or as many times as it takes for you to realize that as long as you are currently married, and those two questions above have the answer “no” and you realize that it is you and your wife who conferred the sacrament on each other.
Now, go back to loving your wife. And faster.
ST John,
let me take a shot.
>>>The illogical point here is that we very well could not have a valid marriage due to something we can’t see. I too would like to have our marriage “checked” for validity. <<< One point is that the "Sacrament" of marriage is the only sacrament where the ordained priest is _not_ the minister of the sacrament. The bride and groom actually minister the sacrament to each other. The priest or deacon is there as a witness of the church. And of course, the witness of the best man and maid of honor. So regarding >>> What assurances are there to the person who thinks to himself, “Is my marriage really valid? Are there any impediments to my marriage?”<<< So a priest can only ask the questions of impediments: is there proper 'form' and 'matter' for this marriage. If the couple is not honest with the priest/ deacon during the process - maybe because they know they might not be married, then that should cause you the couple to reflect on whether they really _want_ to get married in the church anyway. The questions the priest/ deacon asks regard the 'form and matter' of the sacrament. Form: "the words" the vows of the church, which is why we can't 'write our own vows' in the Catholic church Paraphrasing the exchange of consent: Freely coming to sacrament (no pressure from parents), total gift of self ( want to give yourself totally) , Faithful ( I will love you, and you alone - not that I have Suzy-Q on the side and I will keep that up) and open to life - children are the natural fruit of God's blessing on your union. If you plan from the very beginning (but lied to the priest/ deacon during the preparation) to not be open to children(some couples 'deciding' intentionally to be 'child free'), then there is serious concern if this is a valid marriage. Matter: no impediments (from the God's Plan for a Joy Filled Marriage workbook from Ascension Press) some Impediments would include: Men under age of 16, women under 14 preexisting valid marriage person brought about death of death of spouse in order to marry definitive and perpetual impotence This sexual misunderstanding of what our sex has to do with our learning about God is at the root of the priest sex scandal, as well as other pedophile problems. btw- I am not an Ascension Press employee, but a lay catholic who has tried to learn about the Theology of the Body and how this applies to our life. And this is a practical way in which is does so. fwiw
This is one of those “possession is 9/10 of the law” things. In general, if somebody goes and get married, with a reasonable belief that they can get married, and if he stays married and isn’t doing anything creepy and wrong, there’s no reason to worry about whether impediments exist because it’s assumed to be valid. Impediments are for keeping you out of invalid marriages beforehand, and getting you out of them afterward.
Canon law is not supposed to make people worry or be a burden. It’s supposed to come into play only when necessary, to help in the salvation of souls, and to stay out of the way the rest of the time.
Actually, no unreasonable pressure from the parents. Or anyone else to be sure.
On the comments that happily married couples do not need to investigate — well, no, that’s why we have convalidation, so that couples who realize there was an impediment can straighten things out.
Your question is puzzling to me.
Are you looking for reasons/excuses to leave your wife?
Is your wife looking for reasons/excuses to leave you?
If the answer is “no” to both: Your marriage is valid.
BobCatholic
Hypothetically speaking.
I am not looking for a reason to leave my wife. And to my knowledge, my wife is not presently looking for a reason to leave me. So you are saying, at the moment my marriage is valid. But who knows the future? Maybe someday my wife will leave me. I am not certain there are no impediments that would, in the future, cause the marriage I thought to be valid to be invalid.
I would rather know now so I don’t spend time with a woman who could just up and leave me in the future.
Didn’t Ted Kennedy get an annulment?
Ray R,
Thanks for your help. It gets me part way there and even though it is still a bit puzzling, I know it is my job to do my best for my wife and family. Here’s to holy marriages and families!
If a marriage is invalid, it is invalid, and it was invalid from the very start.
However, as a practical matter, most dioceses in the US require a civil divorce before commencing an annulment proceeding, because in the past, before no-fault (civil) divorces, people went to the Church tribunals first, got their annulments, and then were unable to get civil divorces, because they didn’t meet the criteria for the civil action.
The best time to check for impediments is before the wedding. This requires due diligence on the part of the potential spouses (i.e., getting to know each other reasonably well before proposing or accepting a proposal), and the priest arranging the wedding. Annulments after the wedding are an attempt to heal a bad situation, and should be regarded as such.
(Keep in mind the tribunals work on the presumption that a thing is done correctly, unless evidence can be produced to the contrary.)
And I can no upside to having Church tribunals “check” untroubled marriages. First, the tribunals would be clogged with the cases of the scrupulous, who see needless uncertainty, and of those using the tribunal as a weapon in their household squabbles. Second, any couple who entered this process with an untroubled marriage, would have a seriously troubled marriage afterwards. (Wife of husband who wanted to have his marriage “checked”: “Why did you start this expensive and harrowing process? Now I hate you, and now I will leave you, and you won’t be able to get an annulment.”)
(Full disclosure: I am the author of the post signed, “www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkj-egmNzYRpHayuqhSk0ugg1azYqD7fCU”. There was a glitch with my sign in when I made the post.)
Yes, I believe Ted Kennedy got an annulment.
Jay D,
The fact is, your wife can walk out on you anytime she pleases and she will have as much help as she wants to, to think/come up with/fabricate any number of ways to “prove” nullity in your marriage. The same holds for you.
Anyone who says otherwise is deceived.
In American Tribunals her chances of obtaining the requisite two (2) decisions needed to free her from your “arrangement” are quite good.
But, even worse than that.
Even if you were knowledgeable and truthful enough to sustain the validity of your marriage in the American Tribunals, or did the same in Rome, as I did, your wife still, should she decide to take up with another man, would be welcomed with open arms by priests and bishops alike. Rome would ignore your pleas for help to save your marriage and “good catholics”, like many who frequent forums like this, would tell you that your wife must have been justified because you are evil for exposing the corruption that is present throughout the Catholic Church and that you deserve adultery and civil slavery while your children deserve multiple blended families and the confusion of irreconcilable, Catholic, pastoral gobbledygook regarding marriage, from bishops who are quick to condemn same sex unions but refuse to see their complicity in all of this hell and how this nightmare provides the milieu for the present assaults on the Catholic Church. It is a disgusting cesspool!
This is the truth. I have experienced this for over twenty years.
The Catholic Church has no wish to address these issues regarding marriage and absolutely no intent of even attempting to hold to account, those priests, bishops and laymen and women who do all they can to destroy valid marriages.
But to answer the original question, marriage annulments, when properly administered, pastorally and canonically, are consistent with the scriptures, but for Catholics, they are in union with tradition as well.
The problem is that they are not administered properly in many cases and there is no method to address their abuse. But the profound tragedy is that the Popes, both this one and his predecessor, have fully known this and they approve of it. They are capable of acting to address complaints like mine, and countless others, that have been made to Rome over the years and made to various bishops over the years but, our marriages are not worth the time of a Pope. Certainly, our marriages are not worth removing the bishops who refuses to help, either.
That tells me that I need to pray for the Pope, the Church, my wife, her lover, our children, those scandalized by this un-addressed holocaust, those NOT SCANDALIZED by it and myself. But it also requires of me to, everyday, accept what God asks of me, which is to be faithful to our marriage and to live as a witness to a Catholic Church in massive decay and disarray, especially when the hierarchy is actively attacking marriages with the Pope leading the assault, while in public, in scandalously open denial, is saying otherwise, not unlike our American politicians who claim the moral high ground as they legislatively undermine the history of western civilization in the United States.
The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. He died for her, as I must for my bride and His Bride.
What you must know Jay D, is that He may ask of you what He has asked of me. He knows what His Church needs, even as it ignores Him.
This is what a priest is saying when he agrees to officiate at a wedding. He has examined the couple, and to the best of his knowledge, nothing hinders the marriage.
If, OTOH, what you’re getting at is there should be no annulments at all, well, that’s a no-go too. As long as there are minimum requirements for marriage, restrictions on who may marry whom, and human fallibility and misbehavior, there will be a need for annulment procedures.
>Maybe someday my wife will leave me.
Validity of a marriage takes place at the time of the vows. Not afterwards. If she leaves you, it is her who was not trustworthy, not the validity of the marriage.
> I would rather know now so I don’t spend time with a woman who could just up and leave me in the future.
I’m still confused here.
If you had a valid marriage with a woman who would leave you, what does this mean? You’ll leave her before she leaves you?
If you had an invalid marriage with the woman of your dreams, you would leave her because the marriage is invalid?
You DID discern your vocation to marriage before you got married right? You two prayed and discerned that it was God’s will for you two to be married?
If yes, you are doing God’s will then. Then how could you have entered an invalid marriage? That’s not God’s will.
Why don’t you squash this question and its jackboot stomping on your heart, by simply having your vows renewed in a Catholic Church?
This question you have of validity does no good except to plant doubts in your mind – a cross you don’t really have to carry.
Karl,
You have some real suffering. Know of our prayers. Its the process/tribunals that are flawed methinks.
Not all of them. But the solution begins
with us and our faithfulness.