Discourse on the Catholic Marriage Annulment Process.

Vic Biorseth, Wednesday, June 10, 2009
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

First, the Church does not prohibit, per se, separation or even divorce. A married couple is encouraged to strive to resolve differences and rise above difficulties, but when all that fails separation is not out of the question. Particularly in cases of abuse, it may be the only solution. What the Church frowns on is, not separation or divorce, but rather, re-marriage after such an event. It is of vital importance to individual souls, to families and to the larger culture that the marriage covenant be very strongly protected. The Church – as exemplified by the leadership of Rome – has done a very good job of that over the centuries. But, the Church – as exemplified by most American dioceses and archdioceses – has done a less than exemplary job of it. (In my opinion.)

(Note: divorce itself is gravely sinful if not sought and procured on moral grounds. See the discussions / dialogues below this article.)

Perhaps as a good beginning I might copy in here one of my class assignment papers from a “Tribunal Training” class I took in the Athenaeum of Ohio LPMP program. It was my response to an essay type question.

Is a declaration of nullity really just a Catholic form of divorce?

It appears to be moving in that direction. Zwack, in particular, doesn’t seem to make any bones about it; the goal seems to be to get all (or as many as possible) divorced Catholics a declaration of nullity or dissolution. He actually boasts about the 8000% increase in granted annulments between 1968 and 1978, and the exponential rise in applications and the rise in the percentage of successful cases.¹

The entire first chapter is devoted, point by point, to shooting down objections to the process. The point is well made that all cases have already been through the civil divorce process, with the implication that, since the divorce has been granted and is final, the Church ought to accept that fact and get on with bringing the Catholic ex-spouse back into full communion with the Church. But, I wonder, how many times: just this once, or, maybe, in the unusual case, twice? What does this trend train us to do, what does it teach our children, and where does it culturally lead us? Does a culture – or a nation – have a soul?

As I see it, the problem is at the other end – the marrying end. It is not a good thing that now just as many Catholics as Protestants and others get divorced and remarried. Because others make easy compromises with the world, must we? I do not see these trends as good for individuals or for families – the family being the primal social unit – or for societies. If we don’t work to reverse the trend, no one will. We have seen the results of non-Catholic ministers and worshipers who get divorced and remarried, and divorced and remarried, and divorced and remarried, because “it just didn’t work out,” or “sometimes these things just happen.” It seems a bit odd that, since Vatican II, the Church has increasingly stressed the covenant aspect of marriage during the same time frame that Catholic civil divorces began to rocket. (At least in America.)

Some of the cases are heartbreaking; they show a definite need for a good, just process. But others, to my untrained eye, appear frivolous, and mainly a challenge to the procurator or advocate to painstakingly seek out some mundane point of canon law and some twist of interpretation to gain a favorable advantage for the petitioner. On occasion, they do injury to my own personal inner sense of justice. The two impotence cases² in Decisions, for instance, troubled me somewhat. In the first case, the man purposely and will fully obtained a vasectomy for the sole purpose of circumventing procreation, and it was decided that, since even a vasectomy has a certain failure rate, the case for impotence was not proven. In the second case, the woman was, through no will of her own, incapable of conceiving because she lacked the requisite ovaries and other items, although she (probably) wanted children, and the marriage was declared null on the grounds of her impotence. And both of these cases were in spite of Canon 1084 § 3: “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage, with due regard to canon 1098.”³ And in neither case was any spouse deceived about the condition of the other. The first case seemed to me to be a matter of intention against procreation, and my inner sense of justice indicated that both of these cases should have been decided differently.

If any aspect I’ve learned about so far leads in the direction of “Catholic Divorce” it must be the newer usage of Psychological Grounds. Psychology directly opposes Christian teaching in a number of areas, the most obvious being, of course, the notion of sin. Annulment⁴ goes into some detail outlining how psychological grounds for lack of due discretion or lack of due competence are becoming increasingly popular. They are, apparently, simultaneously easier to “prove” and more difficult to challenge. In the section explaining how these grounds are “broadly applicable” it is recommended that they be used any time one doubts they have a case on any other terms. But, one wonders, what, exactly, is the proof? If someone is not clinically ill and being treated, if they are free and operating in society and not institutionalized, their reported conduct may still be remotely analyzed by an “expert” who is well trained in all the psycho-babble buzz-words that are so difficult for others to refute. All one needs is one of these experts to testify, and the Tribunal is unlikely to question his or her opinion.⁵

Granted that I may be grossly overstating the case, the opportunity for abuse is still quite clear. And I don’t like the numbers. The “last resort” grounds, to be used only when there are not other grounds, has become, in the last decade, representative of 80% of all granted formal annulments in the US.⁶ Recognizing that there are legitimate cases in which someone winds up married to a truly ill or disordered person, it does not seem to follow that anything like a majority of divorce cases involve such illnesses or disorders. What seems to be manifesting itself is an increasing loss of social sense of family, commitment, responsibility, compromise, duty, sacrifice and honor. If other cultures in which marriages are pre-arranged and the spouses never see each other before the wedding have a divorce rate near nil, then, perhaps we are merely spoiling ourselves, and our culture, with one easy compromise after another. Is it mostly a mental problem, or a moral one? We need to turn our faces back to the Lord.

¹Annulment: Your Chance to Remarry Within the Catholic Church; Joseph P. Zwack; pg 5.
²Decisions: Lawrence G. Wren, Janet Passerne and Marc Finch; pg 1, and Salvatore Anhinga and Ruth Bocian, pg 5.
³The Invalid Marriage; Lawrence G. Wrenn; Pgs 7 and 13.
⁴Annulment; Joseph P. Zwack; Chapter 3.
⁵Ibid; pg 47.
⁶Ibid; pg 39.

What American trends in the Catholic Annulment Process tell me reaffirms the old saw about how any compromise with the world leads to more compromises with the world, and that each successive compromise gets a little easier, until one day we look up and find that the world is in command of us. Some things cannot be compromised without being destroyed. Marriage is one of them.

The Numbers Tell the Story. The number of Annulments granted by the Catholic Church in the whole world between the years 1952 and 1956 was: 392.

Prior to Vatican II the only psychological grounds for annulment were those that showed that one of the parties lacked the faculty of reason, to the extent that they could not properly perform the act of will required to understand and properly consent to the requirements of the marriage contract. This rather extreme degree of the lack of reason had to be shown with certainty.

When the Church began recognizing other “psychological grounds” for annulments in 1970, the numbers began to rocket. The American total for 1968 was: 338. The number in 1978 exceeded 27,000, an increase in excess of 8,000%.

The numbers continue to increase. The numbers through the 80s:

There is definitely something wrong with this picture.

Some have postulated that the 1983 changes in Canon law relating to the annulment process had a second dramatic affect, again boosting the numbers of annulment cases both filed and approved. It became an increasingly popular new path to Catholic marriage annulment in America. Specifically, Canon 1095 is claimed to have had this affect.

Canon 1095 – They are incapable of contracting marriage:
§1. who lack the sufficient use of reason;
§ 2. who suffer from grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties which are to be mutually given and accepted;
§ 3. who are not capable of assuming the essential obligations of matrimony due to causes of a psychic nature.

One such notorious use of Canon 1095 involved the U.S. Congressman Joseph Kennedy. He sought and received from the Archdiocese of Boston an annulment of his marriage to Sheila Rauch Kennedy, on the grounds of “lack of due discretion.” This annulment was granted in Boston in 1997. The congressman and his wife had met during her senior year of college, and they had known each other for nine years prior to their marriage. Then, after 12 years of marriage and two children, he “discovered” her mental incompetence.

Mrs. Kennedy, apparently not so mentally incompetent, wrote a book about the ordeal titled Shattered Faith criticizing the Church for granting this annulment. She was right. The Vatican overturned the Kennedy annulment in 2005. In my opinion, the Vatican should look very hard at Canon 1095, and at the whole notion of “psychological grounds” for a Catholic marriage annulment.

And, of course, at the motives of a majority of America’s bishops. The real problem is probably loose (at least) or biased and/or devious (at worst) interpretation of Canon, law more than the Canon law itself. The diocesan or archdiocesan bishop bears ultimate authority and responsibility here.

Marriage Defined.

The two most significant purposes of marriage are the unitive and the procreative. The Sacrament of marriage “unifies” the two parties into one communion; from that point on, throughout life, they act and react to the world together.

God instituted marriage between a man and a woman: “ … male and female He created them.” Gen. 1:27.

God’s first words to man and woman, after blessing them, were, “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.” Gen. 1:28. This is our first prohibition against artificial contraception.

Our Lord Jesus Christ raised marriage between a baptized man and a baptized woman to a sacrament.

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;" Eph. 5:31-32.

Our Lord Jesus taught the indissoluble nature of marriage.

”And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Mark 10:2-12.

”Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” Luke 16:18.

”To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” 1 Cor. 7:10-11.

By Canon 1055 we know that a Catholic marriage is both a contract and a sacrament. The agreement and the intent of the baptized parties to join in marriage form the matter of the contract; the vows, liturgy and so forth provide the form of the marriage covenant. Marriage is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. No matter what any civil authorities might say about it, the married spouses, through marriage, assume primary if not sole responsibility for the education, care and well being of their own offspring.

Matrimony – marriage – is, by its very nature, an exclusive union between one man and one woman, and the bond of marriage lasts for the couple’s entire earthly life.

Catholic Annulment Defined.

An official Catholic Church “Decree of Nullity” is a formal finding by a Church Tribunal that – on the day that the marriage vows were exchanged – some essential element required for a valid marriage was lacking. It refers very strictly to the day the vows were exchanged, and to no other date. If someone goes insane or something on any later date, that has no effect on the validity of the marriage on the date the vows were exchanged. The vows include the words “for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; till death do us part.” No matter what happens later, we are bound by the Sacrament of marriage, and by the true value of our own word, to keep the vows of marriage, for life. Period.

Effects on Children.

A declaration of nullity of a marriage has no effect whatsoever on children born of the marriage. The children are never considered anything other than perfectly legitimate children of married parents, for life. It is held that whatever factor(s) contributed to the finding of the Tribunal were not known at the time of the marriage, and the parties to the marriage were perfectly free to consummate the marriage and to legitimately live together as man and wife, and to have and raise legitimate children. If the factor(s) contributing to the finding of the Tribunal had been known at the time the vows were exchanged, the marriage would not have taken place.

Impediments to a Catholic marriage.

After a Catholic marriage, some pre-existing impediment to the legitimacy of the marriage may be discovered. For example, a married sailor may be lost at sea. After some years, when he is presumed dead, his widow remarries. Some years after that event, the sailor is discovered marooned on some island, and is returned to his home and family. Now it is discovered that the current marriage had a pre-existing impediment in the form of a previous marriage; the second marriage is thus invalidated, or nullified due to the pre-existing impediment.

If you think that example is far fetched, crazier things have happened.

Some Catholic marriage impediments:

1. Non-age -
   As of November 1983: female 14, male 16.
   As of 1917: female 12, male 14.
2. Impotence -
   Inability to consummate the marriage by intercourse (cannot marry; if in doubt, may marry.)
3. Ligamen -
   Prior bond – bound by prior marriage(s), until prior marriage(s) null or dissolved. Any second or subsequent marriage is invalid.
4. Disparity of cult – (only applies to Roman Catholics)
   Dispensation required to marry a non-Catholic.
   Married a non-baptized person.
   Mixed marriage – Catholic marries baptized non-Catholic.
   Must have proper form - a sacred place; a priest or deacon, two witnesses.
5. Sacred Orders.
   Priests or deacons bound by the sacrament cannot marry.
6. Public Professional religious vows – cannot marry validly until dispensed.
   (Private vows are not an impediment to marriage.
7. Abduction.
   A man cannot kidnap a woman into marriage.
   In Eastern code, a woman cannot abduct a man.
8. Criminal act.
   You and intended spouse cannot murder present spouse in order to marry.
9. Consanguinity – with blood.
   Can never marry siblings, ancestors or descendants.
   First cousins only with dispensation.
10. Affinity.
    May not marry ancestors or descendents of past spouse.
    May marry siblings of past spouse.
11. De facto relatives.
    Regarding co-habitation, or, common law marriage, where recognized in civil law:
    Cannot marry ancestors or descendents.
12. Adoption.
    Cannot marry someone who has adopted you or you have adopted.
    Cannot marry adopted siblings.

The Fornication Impediment.

”It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.“ Matt. 5:31-32.

”And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” Matt. 19:9.

The above quotes are from the RSV, my favorite version. In the Douay-Rheims, which is an exact interpretation from the Latin Vulgate, the only version ever blessed by a Church Council, the word “unchastity” is rendered “fornication.” I believe the Greek rendering is “fornication.” (Correct me if I’m wrong.) In all likelihood, our Lord was speaking about fornication rather than adultery, and He certainly knew the difference between the two. The sinner commits the sin of fornication only before he or she is married, and the sinner commits the sin of adultery only after marriage. So what our Lord was talking about here was the discovery that a spouse was not a virgin at the time of marriage. He or she had committed the sin of fornication.

If a party intended to marry a virgin and only a virgin, and would not marry a non-virgin, and discovers after the marriage that the other party was not really a virgin at the time of marriage, there may be grounds for nullification of the marriage. This is a very rarely used reason today. In the primitive Church everyone was assumed to remain virgin until after marriage.

Adultery some time after marriage is not, in and of itself, grounds for nullity. If, however, it may be shown that adultery was present at the beginning, as in an affair that began before and continued after the marriage, that might show the intent of the offending party in another light, and it may indeed present grounds for nullity, since unity was not an intent of one of the parties at the altar. Unity requires the exclusion of all intimate relationships other than with the spouse.

The Pauline Privilege.

We have the enigmatic quote of our Lord from Luke, in which He speaks of division and fire rather than peace. It is because of the New Covenant which He is establishing, and the new “Way,” the Way of the Lord.

”I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” Luke 12:49-53.

To this day, nobody likes a Jesus freak. In that day, it brought much more severe division, among Jews, as well as among Romans, Greeks and other pagans, because a new religion was being born. Imagine a child, or a wife, or a servant coming home to an orthodox Jewish household and announcing that they had just been baptized into a new religion, a religion not familiar to anyone else in the house. They could well be thrown out of the house. Our Lord and His Gospel became a cause of extreme division in the first century and afterward.

If a non-Catholic divorces a Catholic, or one who seeks to become Catholic, and the reason for the divorce is the Catholicism of the spouse, then the Catholic spouse has grounds for nullity of the marriage. The non-Catholic must be the one who initiated the divorce. To quote St. Paul:

”To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife? Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.” 1 Cor. 7:10-17.

The key verse is verse 15: “But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.”

While it is preferred that they remain together, if the non-Catholic initiates and accomplishes a divorce, the Catholic spouse has grounds for nullity.

The Petrine Privilege.

Petrine Privilege may be applied only to a non-sacramental marriage, i.e., a marriage between a baptized and a non-baptized person, which has been terminated by divorce. For a just cause, the Holy Father can “dissolve” such a marriage “in favor of the faith.” Dissolution of the bond will not be granted to a Catholic whose non-sacramental marriage had been properly dispensed from the disparity of worship (disparity of cult) impediment.

The Petrine Privilege involves, rather than a declaration of nullity, a dissolution of an otherwise valid marriage, and it may only be approved by the reigning pope. Obviously, since only one man on earth may approve them, these cases are exceedingly rare.

The Petrine Privilege involves the circumstance where one spouse is un-baptized and the other is baptized. The un-baptized spouse must have remained un-baptized throughout the entire duration of the marriage. In this circumstance, if either spouse wants either to 1: become Catholic, or, 2: marry a Catholic, that spouse may apply to Rome for a papal decision in favor of the faith.

If the petitioner is the un-baptized spouse or was validly baptized into another non-Catholic but Christian Church, he or she must either wish to be baptized or received into the Catholic Church, or to marry a baptized practicing Catholic.

If the petitioner is a baptized Catholic who was married to an un-baptized person, he or she must either wish to marry a baptized Christian or promise to marry a baptized Christian in the future.

Petrine Privilege involves highly technical and complicated cases requiring deep immersion in Canon law and precedent. It requires petition directly to Rome and an ultimate decision by the Holy Father himself.

The Annulment Process.

The Purpose of filing for an annulment is to enable a petitioner, whose prior marriage(s) ended in civil divorce or dissolution, the right to marry in the Catholic Church.

Any Person, Catholic or not, baptized Christian or not, whose prior marriage(s) was/were terminated by civil divorce or dissolution may petition the Church for a declaration of nullity. The person who initiates the process is called the petitioner, and the former spouse is called the respondent.

The Petitioner must have some geographic relationship to the archdiocese or diocese where the petition is filed. It may be:

1. where the wedding took place;
2. the residence of the respondent;
3. the residence of the petitioner;
4. where the most evidence may be collected.

The petitioner bears the obligation to prove the case, through responses on the proper questionnaire(s), necessary documents, names and addresses of the respondent and all witnesses.

The respondent has the right to present his or her side of the case, and may appoint a priest, deacon or qualified lay person as procurator, who may assist the respondent in understanding the process, and who may defend the respondent’s rights. If no attempt is made to contact the respondent the annulment process itself will be made null and void.

The cost varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In many cases there is no charge; in others, it is minimal. In many, either the diocese/archdiocese, the local parish, or both, may defray part of all of the cost. Last time I looked, in the Cincinnati Archdiocese, a simple lack of form case cost $35, and the cost ran up to $400 for a Petrine Privilege submitted to Rome. The fee for a formal declaration of nullity was only $300, although the actual cost to the archdiocese was considerably higher than that; sometimes as much as $1,200. If any psychological evaluation is required, the petitioner is asked to bear the cost.

Petitioners with financial difficulties should make them known to the Tribunal at the beginning of the process so that alternative arrangements may be made.

The time required for the whole process will be a minimum of 12 to 18 months, and the time will depend heavily on the complexity of the case, and the work load of the Tribunal. Note that some cases cannot be proved. No date for another wedding may be set until an annulment is final.

The process begins at the parish. A priest, deacon or qualified lay expert will discuss the case with the petitioner, and go over the initial biographical facts of the case. Before the case can go to the Tribunal all civil records of all marriages and divorce/dissolutions involved must be provided. These are always available at the courthouse(s) where these public acts are recorded. The priest / deacon / lay expert may appoint or become your procurator, who will eventually present your case to the Tribunal. All communications between petitioner and Tribunal must go through the procurator of the case because of the complexities involved.

Petitioner must fill out a Form F-100, the standard questionnaire for annulments, which has 44 questions that must be answered. The answers must be clear and make sense to the Tribunal. Simple yes or no answers are often not that helpful. It is advised to do one or more “rough draft” F-100 forms for your procurator to go over with you before completing a final one. The F-100 to be submitted should be typed or printed legibly in dark ink. Many people will be handling and reading this form. Some petitioners have taken as much as three months to complete a final F-100. It is very important to get it right.

Documents, Witnesses, Professionals. All facts presented on the F-100 are regarded as allegations until proven. Petitioner is required to submit names, addresses, phone numbers of the respondent and a reasonable number of witnesses who know the facts of the case. (Minimum of 2 or 3, maximum of 6.)

Any involved psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, priest, minister or other professional can make statements via the “professional release” forms provided with the F-100 form. These forms release the professional from professional secrecy, and the Tribunal will only read their statements if one of these signed forms is provided. One can be copied and supplied to each professional whose input is needed.

Petitioner alerts witnesses that the Tribunal will contact them. Witnesses are asked to give complete, unprompted and truthful statements to the Tribunal. They may be contacted by mail or by personal visit. The normal contact is made by mail unless there are problems such as blindness or other inability to read and/or write. All witnesses supplied on the F-100 witness sheet will be contacted. This is typically the most time consuming part of the whole process.

Confidentiality. The F-100 and all other forms, documents and testimony attendant to the process are held in strictest confidence. The Tribunal is bound by oath to keep all contents strictly confidential.

A Protocol Number is assigned by a Secretary who is a notary and who handles all mail. The Secretary makes the documents official by stamping them on the date they arrive. The Secretary investigates to see if there are any other correspondence on file for the parties in the case, and assigns a protocol number, which, from this point on, must appear on every piece of correspondence relating to the case. No exceptions. If the protocol number is not on any correspondence it may be lost. The Tribunal handles, potentially, thousands of cases per year.

A Case Director / Auditor is assigned to your case. The Case Director guides the case through its various steps. People who gather necessary information are often called auditors or instructors. The Auditor prepares and sends proper questionnaires and cover letters to the respondent, witnesses and other persons listed on the F-100.

The petitioner may be asked to re-contact someone or to seek someone’s cooperation.

Evaluation and Review. At this point the Tribunal will determine if there is a valid ground for the action. The case is reviewed for its merits. A judge or a panel of three judges and a defender of the bond, who will argue for the validity of the marriage, will review the case. The purpose is to find if there is any valid ground for a declaration of nullity. All marriages are assumed valid; they must be proven invalid.

Procurator(s) may be notified if further information is required; other witness testimony may be called for if it is important to complete understanding of the marriage. A psychological evaluation may be requested.

Withdrawal of Petition may be recommended by the Tribunal to the petitioner if there is insufficient proof for the case of nullity. Documents will be kept on file as the case may be reopened if further information becomes available. The petitioner can request a formal decision.

The formal hearing, known as the joinder of issue, then takes place, in which the judge(s) make a formal decision. The judge(s), defender of the bond and representatives of the parties are present on an as-needed basis. The parties themselves may attend, but normally do not, as this is strictly a procedural hearing and they have already given their testimony.

A judgment is rendered and the case is declared concluded. The defender of the bond writes a brief; the procurators of one or both parties may also be asked to write briefs as advocates. Once these briefs are completed, the decision of the judge(s) is written up in a sentence. The parties and the procurators are then notified of the results of the decision.

Due to the serious nature of the matter, an approved annulment only becomes final after the case has received the two independent affirmative decisions required by law. Therefore, an affirmative decision will automatically be sent on to the appeal court for a second formal hearing.

A negative decision may be formally appealed by the petitioner. It normally takes about three months between the decision of the first formal hearing and the appeal court decision, although all cases are different.

Freedom to marry within the Catholic Church is allowed only after the second affirmative finding from the appeal court. A letter of notification will be sent to the petitioner, the respondent and their procurators. This is a very important document that should be safe-guarded; the fact of an annulment is proven through it.

The finding of the Tribunal was that there was a valid ground for the declaration of nullity. This could mean that one of the parties had an impediment to valid marriage that may still exist. Any such impediment, such as untreated alcoholism, extreme immaturity, etc., must be removed before that party is free to marry in the Catholic Church. Also, any civil affects of the first marriage remain unchanged. For instance, any court ordered child support from the first marriage remains a legal obligation. All legal obligations to the first union must be satisfied before undertaking any new obligations.

All decisions can be appealed to the Rota in Rome.

Elsewhere in this website, and at the top of this webpage, I have taken issue with the way Catholic annulments have been handled in America. My concerns are not so much with the formal process or with the law as it exists as with the perceived looseness of interpretation enabling what I believe are unnaturally large numbers of affirmative decisions. I suspect that Europe has the same problem.

There are numbers of deeply wounded, disaffected Catholics, and even Catholics who have left the faith over this issue. Some of them have contacted me through this website. The thing is, although we can say that children of nullified marriages are unaffected by this, many such children consider themselves somehow de-legitimized by this legal process, and many deeply wounded spouses cannot get over the fact that the Church actually nullified their marriage of umpty-ump years and X number of kids. A bad decision here can have devastating effects on innocent people.

I wonder how many times the real motive for annulment was hidden and another one “found.” I believe Catholic marriage annulment, when invalidly done, hurts people, and culture, even more than divorce does.

Pray for the wounded. Pray the pope and the bishops. Pray for justice.

Reference Material

Return to Arguments Pro and Con page

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Sat Jun 20 21:34:17 2009
From: Karl
Email: Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com City
Location:
Comment:

You are just another of a precious few voices in the wilderness, Vic. But it is nice to "hear" your "voice" anyway.

I have pretty much gave up the battle. Now I am pushing for my "defection" from the faith to be "officially" recognized.

Pray for me.

Date: Sun Jun 21 23:45:34 2009
From: Confused
Email:
Location:
Comment:

To Karl:

I’m confused. Are you pushing for a final decision, one way or another, on a marriage annulment?

Date: Mon Jun 22 05:23:22 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

To Whomever:

Note that a separation, civil divorce or civil dissolution is not a sin. Divorced people still stand in the state of grace or sin in which they stood before the civil divorce. There is nothing pertaining to divorce itself that precludes full membership in the Body of Christ and full participation in all of the Sacraments.

(Note: see the dialogue below – divorce itself can be gravely sinful if not sought and procured on moral grounds.)

Completion of a civil divorce or dissolution is an absolute requirement before a declaration of nullity from the Church may be applied for by either party.

The only reason to file such a request is the desire to remarry someone other than the original spouse, within the Church, after having a previous marriage ended by civil divorce or dissolution.

It is only the act of remarrying or cohabiting with someone other than the original spouse in the absence of a declaration of nullity that one separates oneself from grace and from the Sacraments, via the sin of adultery. The problem is that, even in Confession, the priest cannot grant absolution for the sin unless and until the sinner permanently ends the adulterous cohabitation.

Advice To Young People: Look very carefully and meditate upon the words of the Marriage Covenant. Discuss them with your fiancé. Listen to your fiancé. Listen to your mother and your father. Listen to the mother and father of your fiancé. Talk to your priest, together and separately. Words have consequences. If either of you are not ready for this very serious life-long commitment, then don’t make it. If and when you say these words, then you must do everything in your power to keep them, for the rest of your earthly life.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Fri Jul 03 11:11:30 2009
From: Sheryl Temaat
Email: tmsharel@aol.com
Location: Monument, CO USA
Comment:

"Affects on Children." above should be "Effects on Children. Excellent article; I've not read it carefully, but you've got it right.

"The Church" effectively bastardizes children through its invalid annulment process, then argues that they are legitimate. I don't think the children care anymore what "the Church" says. And by "the Church," I mean the dissenting church, not the one, holy, apostolic Catholic Church of all time.

Sheryl

Date: Fri Jul 03 15:33:06 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Sheryl:

Thank you; I have corrected the error.

I think we are in total agreement.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Fri Jul 03 12:52:39 2009
From: Mark Feliz
Email: mefeliz@earthlink.net
Location: Colorado Springs, CO USA
Comment:

Vic

When you say that the Church does not prohibit divorce or separation are you taking into consideration CCC 2384-2385? It's little known to the Roman Catholics I speak to. Priests make the same statement you make, but fail to provide the full picture. Partial truth is so dangerous!

Canon Law 1060 also states that a marriage is presumed valid unless PROVEN invalid (paraphrased). These two official positions ought to be preached from the pulpit, don't you think?

To the tribunals and Bishops in this country please teach these truths in any reference you make to the divorced and separated brethren like myself. Bishops I beg you hold your judicial vicars feet to the fire when it comes to marital validity. You don't want them to exercise compassion at the expense of truth, do you? The very definition of "love" and "marriage" is at stake.

I have a heck of lot more to say about this, but I am committed to making my child support payments on time; off to work I go, I owe,I owe.

Mark Feliz

Colorado Springs

Date: Fri Jul 03 15:51:47 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Mark:

Yes sir; I am taking paragraphs 2384-2385 into account, along with paragraphs 2383 and 2386; but you make a good point. Perhaps I should have hit this point in more detail. Let’s look at that whole section:

Divorce

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.¹⁷⁴ He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.¹⁷⁵

Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."¹⁷⁶

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.¹⁷⁷

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.¹⁷⁸

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.¹⁷⁹

175 Cf. Mt 19:7-9.
176 CIC, can. 1141.
177 Cf. CIC, cann. 1151-1155.
178 St. Basil, Moralia 73,1:PG 31,849-852.
179 Cf. FC 84.

Only the actual spouses, and God, know all the real details that lead up to the separation. This is an issue that wrenches the heart of the honest and faithful spouse. At the same time, it is an issue that is frequently involved with lies on the part of at least one party.

If there was one single point of contention that turned me sour against the process during the Marriage Tribunal course, it was the seeming wish to satisfy the wishes of the petitioner, almost at all costs. The a-priori assumption seemed to be that the petitioner is the injured party. And when the initial ground for annulment was not proven, the procurator would seek other grounds, including grounds not originally even imagined by the petitioner.

I simply cannot believe the numbers of annulments granted on so-called psychological grounds as being truthfully representative of a full 80% of all annulments, and I cannot accept how the numbers of all annulments have rocketed since the use (abuse?) of psychological grounds became popular.

I’m not from Missouri, but you still have to show me.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sat Jul 04 09:57:02 2009
From: Bai Macfarlane
Email: ma.defending@marysadvocates.org
Location: Westlake, Ohio
Comment:

Comment: Hello Vic,

In your opening paragraph you wrote: What the Church frowns on is, not separation or divorce, but rather, re-marriage after such an event.

This is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church – especially in a civil environment that welcomes no-fault divorce.

If by divorcing, a spouse is not in the state of grace, the Church does frown. Abandoning marital life with for no moral reason is a grave sin. Approaching divorce court without first having permission of one’s bishop is a violation of canon law. Having an adulterous, or sexually active relationship outside of marraige is a grave sin; if one has no firm resolve to stop sinning, one is not prepared to confess the sins.

The Compendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that divorce, which goes against the indissolubility of marriage, is a grave sin opposed to the sacrament of Matrimony; and the physical separation of spouses is allowed when for serious reasons their living together becomes practically impossible (Sec, 347: Sec. 348). The Catechism of the Catholic Church, describes divorce as immoral and a grave offense against nature. It also makes a clear distinction between a spouse who has been faithful to one's marriage and is unjustly abandoned compared to a spouse who "through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage" (par. 2384-2386). Canon 1060 in the Catholic Code of Canon Law requires that all marriages shall be presumed valid until proven otherwise. In Pope John Paul II's 2004 address to the Roman Rota, he explained how sin can be the cause for family breakup and he cautioned that a marriage is not assumed to be invalid because one or both spouses failed to uphold their duty; "... in accordance with human experience marked by sin, a valid marriage can fail because of the spouses' own misuse of freedom" (Sec. 5).

Catechism section 1649 teaches in some cases, living together becomes practically impossible and in these situations "the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation."

To understand if a divorced Catholic is in the state of grace, it must be determined whether one has a legitimate reason to separate. When the Catechism describes cases in which living together is practically impossible; it reference sections 1151-1155 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law (CCC par 2383, Canon enclosed). The code specifies licit reason for separation: if an innocent spouse is betrayed by an adulterous partner; if an innocent spouse is in grave danger of soul or body caused by the other partner; if children need to be protected from a parent who puts the children in grave danger of soul or body; or if an abusive spouse makes the common life unduly difficult. The Exegetical Commentary of the Code of Canon Law, which is recommended by the President of the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts, defines the conditions in which "grave danger of soul or body" and "unduly difficult" situations provide licit reasons to separate:

For separation due to physical or moral cruelty to be lawful, the following conditions are necessary:

• it must be grave, such that it makes common life dangerous for the spouse or children;
• it must be repeated, because if it were merely occasional, it would not create the fear for future common life, which justifies the separation;
• and separation must constitute the only means of avoiding the danger involved in common life (canon 1153, p.1585).

Most divorces in the United States do not occur because of these moral reasons described in the canon law. According to a 1988 Gallup poll cited by Mike McManus's work, Marriage Savers, 5% of divorce plaintiffs seek divorce because their spouse is physically abusive, 16% seek divorce because their spouse is a substance abuser, and 17% seek divorce because their spouse committed adultery (McManus 123). The remaining majority of divorces are sought for other reasons, and people seeking divorces for these other reasons have no moral grounds to be separating from their spouse.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: 'Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent'" (par. 1857). Canon 915 teaches, "Those ... who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion." A spouse who chooses to separate with no licit reason is named a "malicious abandoner" in the Exegetical Commentary Code of Canon Law (1585).

The Catholic Code of Canon Law, Section 1692, limits the circumstances in which it is allowable to even approach the civil court. The canon describes an ecclesiastic process that considers the "particular" circumstances of every couple, and describes when one can approach a civil court for the "merely civil effects of marriage." The Code of Canon Law Annotated, which is recommended by the President of the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts, explains how canon 1692 specifies the ecclesiastic process that is a "necessary precaution, which prevents the fostering of [government] trials whose judgments violate precepts of divine law, to the detriment of the spouses and with the risk of scandal to others" (Instituto Martin 1324).

The civil divorce routine violates the precepts of divine law because it does not recognize adultery and abandonment as faults. Civil divorce does not acknowledge that an abandoner or abuser has a lifelong responsibility to uphold the "informing principles that constitute the general guidelines for spousal behavior." [...] "Matrimonial life must not involve a detriment to the corporal or material good of the other spouse." [...] "One spouse must not cause the other any detriment to his or her spiritual well being;" [...] "one must not cause any harm to [children's] material or spiritual wellbeing, immorally or culpably" (Instituto Martin 1572). The innocent party and the children should be protected.

With no-fault divorce, children are ordered to regularly leave the parent who wants to keep the family intact, regardless of the negative effect on children's spiritual well being and the "due maintenance and upbringing of children" (canon 1154). Children in traditional families lose full time, stay-at-home parenting. Property is equally split between an innocent spouse and the one who destroys his or her marriage, regardless of the financial devastation this causes to the children or innocent spouse. The innocent spouse often has to pay support for the upbringing of children in a household in which they are not allowed to live. The Exegetical Commentary Code of Canon Law explains that separation should be "an institution for the prevention of future evils for the innocent spouse and children" (Instituto Martin 1570). According to the Church's understanding of separation, when one has been unjustly abandoned, "with invocation of the concept of malicious abandonment, there is an attempt to declare guilty the spouse who has maliciously been absent and to obtain the legal declaration of separation for the one who has been abandoned" with the intent of "specifically protecting compliance with every conjugal and family duty, and penalizing their omission" (Institudo Martin, 1585-1586). Custody, alimony and support orders typically invoked by civil court violate the precepts of divine law, and civil divorce or separation decrees are licit for Catholics only in limited circumstances.

Professed-Catholic information on the Internet needs to clarify the difference between those who separate for moral reasons and those who force divorce for immoral reasons; otherwise websites give the impression that all divorced Catholics are in a state of grace.

Bai Macfarlane
Mary's Advocates
http://www.marysadvocates.org

Date: Sat Jul 04 11:52:12 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Bai:

First, may I wish you a happy and blessed Fourth, and may we celebrate many more.

You are quite correct; I could have chosen my opening words more carefully. See the submission above from Mark Feliz and the response; divorce, in and of itself, is indeed potentially mortally sinful. In many if not most cases, at least one party is probably innocent of any sin. What should be emphasized is that, whatever brought about the separation in the first place, remarriage and/or cohabitation with another party, after divorce, is also gravely sinful. Again, marriage preparation and understanding of what the covenant means is of vital importance to single people before they enter into the sacrament.

I have included a parenthesized comment after the opening paragraph as follows:

(Note: divorce itself is gravely sinful if not sought and procured on moral grounds. See the discussions / dialogues below this article.)

You bring up the most important of the dangerous social trends brought to us by the social / societal secularization process that is and has been under way in our culture and our civil law for far too many generations now. No Fault Divorce makes about as much moral sense as I’m OK – you’re OK divorce, or, let’s just be friends and run around with other partners divorce, or, oh, what the hell divorce.

Which goes right along with no fault auto insurance. It is no longer insurance against merely an auto accident. It has now become “insurance” against my own impulse to get mad at someone and just ram his car. Who cares? We have no fault insurance now. Ain’t America wonderful?

What we are looking at in the secularization movement is an effort led by Marxists, organizations like the ACLU, the Democrat Party, the SLIMC, leading academics everywhere, show-biz and celebritwittery to gradually eliminate our common national Judao-Christian Ethos. What is despised by the Left is our common sense of right and wrong; the foundation of our Constitution and our civil law.

A National Ethos – a common sense of determining right from wrong – is where our majority religion meets our civil law and civil government. Morality comes out of religion, not out of government. Our government serves the people, not the other way round. Representative government needs to recognize and be subservient to the ethos of the populace represented. To do otherwise is to move a whole nation straight into blatant immorality.

I have elsewhere referred to this socio-political trend as a movement from our current and historical Judao-Christian Ethos to a new, foreign, lower ethos, such as the ethos of BMDFP and the Democrat Party.

Thank you for your insight and all the detail. Your website marriage civil “contract” is totally new to me; at first blush it looks like a strong move in the right direction.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Thu Oct 08 21:22:09 2009
From: Sher
Email: thegiftfactory@dc.rr.com
Location: Beaumont/ CA/ USA
Comment:

Apparently my devoted Catholic Father decide[d] the children were included in the annulment as he ignored his first 4 young children for the next 50 years while he made "new children" with his second wife and gave them his love and everything else ... after seeking love and approval the past 50 years plus ... we are requesting an annulment from our Father ... who continues to pay his way in the Catholic Church. Enjoy him

Date: Fri Oct 09 05:32:08 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

General Note:

The hard experience of victims more clearly illustrates the results of broken marriages than any ranting, editorializing or philosophizing could ever do.

All around us in society today we see the negative results of easy divorce and easy annulment. Both should be rare in a stable society; when they are common, the larger society itself is unstable. The family is the primal social unit; as the family goes, so goes the larger society. Nothing should be strengthened more, in both ecclesial law and in civil law, than the marriage covenant.

Divorce and annulment sow seeds of bitterness, and most often Satan reaps the bitter harvest. Easy annulment is very nearly the opposite of evangelization, and easy divorce is very nearly the opposite of uplifting culture.

Even when rare, and even when done for valid reason, divorce and annulment are not uplifting, but dividing and degrading, of families and of the larger culture. It is not good for the Church, and it is not good for America.

Please pray for Sher and her family, for the Church, and for America.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Thu Oct 15 18:27:20 2009
From: Karl
Email: Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com
Location:
Comment:

Dear Vic,

You might find the website of Monsignor Cormac Burke a good read, particularly a new section which involves a book, soon to be published, involving a debate he had regarding "Married Personalism".

Here is the link:

http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/book/Married_Personalism_a_Debate

Perhaps you can post on it?

Best Wishes.

Date: Thu Oct 29 18:15:37 2009
From: Dave
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Dear Vic,

I paid my wife over $77,000 in alimony and as soon as the alimony stopped she then filed for an annulment through the Catholic Church and got it approved.

If she received alimony for 3 years, couldn't I try and get my money back considering she is now stating we were never married?

Would the civil court recognize the annulment in the Catholic as legitimate or would I need to go through the civil court?

Thank you.

Date: Thu Oct 29 18:41:02 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Dave:

I’m no attorney, but I would say no, that won’t fly. There is a divorce (no pun intended) between the ecclesial court and the civil court, and never the twains shall meet.

In the civil court, you got the state required license and were legally married, and your civil divorce settlement addressed that civil law situation.

In the annulment case, an ecclesial court found some impediment to the marriage and declared it to have been invalid according to Church law. That impediment may or may not be considered an impediment in the civil law in whatever jurisdiction the divorce was adjudicated. Whether it was or not, a civil court would have to make that determination, because an ecclesial court decision is not binding in civil law and has no affect on any civil court decision.

My guess would be that you would be wasting time, effort and legal fees pursuing the possibility because the civil court would only consider the civil law that applied, and not the ecclesial law.

Church law and civil law are two different animals. If I’m wrong in this, I’m sure some American attorney or Catholic canon lawyer will point it out soon enough.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sat Oct 31 15:11:58 2009
From: Bernie
Email: b.ames@sbcglobal.net
Location: San CArlos, CA USA
Comment:

Vic,

It was interesting to read about the annulment rationalization of the Church. My father divorced his first wife before marrying my mother, a strong Catholic. He attempted to get an annulment and the story goes that a priest knocked on the door of Dad's first wife to have her sign some documents to start the annulment process. Some sixty plus years later we look back and laugh at her response to the priest. Before slamming the door in his face she used some rather colorful language to tell him and the Church where to go.

Of course as a child I never understood why Dad and Mom could not receive the sacraments as they had been married out of the Church. When I did understand it I felt the Church was hypocritical as it came out that those who had the $$$$$ were able to get their annulments. I never accepted the action and truly believe it is not what Christ wanted. It has been bastardized by the Church intelligentsia.

Date: Sun Jan 17 07:52:25 2010
From: John
Email: johnsev@yahoo.com
Location: Hemet, CA USA
Comment:

Vic thank you for this page. I am a sometimes frustrated man. I am involved in ministry and with the grace of God, that has grown since my wife left me to live with another. We were married twice civilly and the 2nd time was in the church. She intends to pursue an annulment as soon as the civil divorce is final. My frustration is that I do not believe that the grounds exist. With that said I am painfully aware that she will likely receive the annulment even though she left and she currently lives with another. Sadly we are fighting over custody rights of our youngest. We have a six year old as well as a 23 year old and eighteen year old. I have already accepted that God's will is to be done and that may include an annulment that I don't agree with. I will abide by the Church's findings and seek the knowledge to understand our churches decision. I of course pray that I am able to accept a decision either way and should she change her mind that I would be ready to receive her. We have known each other for 27 of our 43 years so I'm quite sure there is nothing about me she did not know. She will be seeking psychological reasons and I understand that it's easy to do it that way.

I thank you for this breath of fresh air so that we lay can read and understand. I am sure that I was unjustly left but God through the Holy Spirit has led me to a sense of forgiveness and love as we work through this season. I include you in my prayers and again thank you. This page is one of hope in that the reading helps the reader to know that he is not alone but there are others with similar questions, concerns, pain and relief.

Date: Sun Jan 17 10:30:28 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

John:

Thank you, and you are in our prayers also. Regardless of any legal machinations or worldly outcomes, know that there is a purpose behind all of this, trust in God and let your consolation be in knowledge of the ultimate Truth that underlies everything.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sun Mar 07 01:36:43 2010
From: Glenn
Email: diosfamiliapatria@yahoo.com
Location: Tucson, AZ
Comment:

Hi Vic,

I hope that you can help me here. I was born and raised Catholic, but upon joining the Army shortly after high school, I fell away from the faith.

In 1989, I began cohabitating with a woman who bore me 6 children. I was with my children's mother for 16 years. During that time we were never legally or religiously married.

In 1998, I returned to the faith, but she refused to accept any part of it. Ultimately, we separated.

Now, some 5 years later, I have found a wonderful Catholic woman who is dying to be a godly mother to my children and a wife to me.

However, her brother says that, since my kids' mom and I lived together in a "natural law" relationship, I must get an annulment.

Again, Vic, I emphasize: We were never married in a religious or even civil ceremony. We lived together, but were never legally married in any way, shape or form.

Do we still have to get an annulment? BTW, I live in Arizona, a state which does not recognize "common law" marriages.

Thanks and God Bless you.

Date: Sun Mar 07 05:52:54 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Glenn:

It is difficult trying to read between the lines from a distance. If the entire period of cohabitation you were shacked up in Arizona, and if Arizona does not recognize common law marriage, then you were not married in civil law. Ecclesial law, however, is not that clear in my layman’s mind. I’m sure it will come up if you seek Catholic marriage, because it may present as a preexisting impediment to a new Catholic marriage. You need to talk to your Pastor and/or your Bishop or his representative well ahead of time.

While it is not clear to me what the Church would say about all this, what my mind and heart say is that you treated this first woman and your children exactly as if you took her to wife, and you kept her in that status for sixteen years. In my non-clerical, non-ecclesial, strictly lay opinion, that makes you married. You were a grown man and you knew full well what you were doing.

Now, you have another woman who is “dying to be a godly mother to my children and a wife to me.” That seems to imply that the first woman has abandoned her children, or somehow is now to be out of the picture as far as their future is concerned.

See the section on the Pauline Privilege. If she was the one to initiate the separation, and the sole reason for the separation was your Catholic faith, you may have grounds for nullity.

Begin with prayer, reflection and repentance.

To all younger readers, note this well: life decisions have consequences.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Fri Apr 16 22:43:59 2010
From: Steve
Email: qvsteve@yahoo.com
Location: Ashtabula, OH U.S.A.
Comment:

I have been divorced for almost 19 years. I am a Catholic and my wife, at the time of marriage, was a practicing Methodist. She initiated and obtained a civil divorce from me on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, which stemmed from our differences in religious beliefs and practices. This is the first time I have read about the Pauline Privilege. Does this sound like grounds for nullity in my case?

Date: Sat Apr 17 08:16:36 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Steve:

Probably not; but that’s just a first-impression guess on my part. It would seem that you both knew about each other’s religion before the marriage. I always thought that the Pauline Privilege meant to address the situation where one spouse converted to Catholicism after the marriage, and the other spouse could not abide it.

However, a strict reading of Paul’s quote, as follows:

“But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.” 1 Cor. 7:14.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sun Apr 18 12:32:08 2010
From: Steve
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Thanks Vic.

I have read more about the Pauline Privilege since sending my inquiry. I too have gotten the impression that you have cited. I will take your advise and talk with my pastor.

Have a great week and God's blessings to you.

Steve

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.