In light of the string of recent questions concerning annulments, I wanted to post a very simple sentence or two on what I think it is / is not.

An annulment is NOT a decree stating that a valid marriage is now invalid. It is not a "divorce" in the Catholic Church.

An annulment IS a decree stating that a marriage was NEVER valid to begin with. (Therefore, if one was to get an annulment, one would automatically WANT to recieve the sacrament of reconciliation for the sin of premarital relations.)

What does this mean?

This means that the Bishop researching one's case is not looking merely at recent events to decide if the marriage should be invalid NOW. The Bishop MUST research past and present events to make SURE that the marriage was NEVER valid. He (and no person) has the authority to divide what God has put together. He merely has the authority to review the details and pray that God gives him the grace to decide correctly on the case. If a Bishop grants an annulment wrongly, he is in essense commiting a sacriledge and wrongly representing Christ. Therefore...

What does this mean (more)?

This means that the Bishop isn't skimming through some papers on what you think your wife did to wrong you (or vice versa). This means that the Bishop isn't going to spend five minutes and come to a conclusion. If he does, not only is he damning himself, but he is putting your soul in sin too! This does meant that the Bishop will be scrutinizing detail upon detail of your wedding and marriage past and present. Therefore, one must understand that this process could, in the more complicated cases, take a very long time. This should NOT be taken to be the fault of the Church, or the fault of the Bishop presiding over your case. He wasn't with you during your wedding, and certainly not during your marriage (valid or not).

In a nutshell: annulments take long, mean that your marriage never actually happend, and are not the fault of the Church or the priests invoved in your case.

Hope this is helpful.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 05, 2002

Answers

to the top

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 05, 2002.

When Jake Huether wrote "Therefore, if one was to get an annulment, one would automatically WANT to recieve the sacrament of reconciliation for the sin of premarital relations", he was, I am fairly sure, making an incorrect assumption. The question of "premarital relations" is similar to the "illegitmacy" one.

The question which some people worry about is the legitimacy of children born in a marriage subsequently declared null. Such a decree of nullity has absolutely no effect on the legitimacy of the children. This is treated in one of the canons of the present Code of Canon Law.

"Canon 1137: Children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate." A previous canon (1061 s3) defines a putative marriage as one which was presumed valid by at least one party but which is in fact invalid. A decree of nullity by a church marriage tribunal could not and does not retroactively make a child illegitimate.

Similarly (although I am not aware of a specific text since it is a moral rather than canonical issue), partners in a putative marriage subsequently declared null would NOT retroactively become fornicators, since they were presumed to be married at the time.

However, if a person knowingly entered into an invalid marriage (with his/her partner believing it valid, thus making it satisfy the requirement of "at least one party" for a putative marriage), then the "knowing" person would probably be guilty of fornication (and other things).

-- Edward Pothier (EdwardPothier@aol.com), August 10, 2002.

Thanks, Edward, for pointing that out. I thought about what I had wrote after, and it was a bit harsh. It just hits me hard when so many take the sacrament so lightly! I really feel, however, that if I were to be in that situation and realize that my marriage was in fact null, then I (just speaking for myself) would, out of the knowledge of what had occured, take it upon myself to recieve the sacrament of reconciliation. Although it may not meet the criteria for a mortal sin, it would indeed be vinial, in which case a good confession would still be acceptable (and in my opinion necessary).

In any event, I hope that you can understand my point, and I hope that I did not offend anyone.

Thank you again for your comment.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 11, 2002.