The Marriage that never was: The Catholic Annulment Process Explained

[@DonBailey-od1de]

The sacrament never took , the sacrament never happened. Therefore the marriage never happened. My wife went to the altar with her fingers crossed behind her back. She was protestant , but five years later her mother had to tell her she was. She thought body and soul went to the grave as her atheist father though. There was wife swapping in her family , three months after marriage i took a book on open marriage way from her. She signed that the children would be raised Catholic , but never ment to honor the agreement. I didn't see the red flags , young and in love , blindly in love With no one to tell me of the dangers. Still bothering me to this day , am i free , but i have never remarried , i will not cut myself off from Communion .

[@savinggift158]

Put yourself forward for the annulment process that the truth may set you free, Do it early while witnesses are alive. It’s good to honour Christ but He is the truth so find out.Sometimes demons are sent out o steal destiny and put us off our destiny

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@savinggift158 the tribunal will annul anything that moves. And what basis is he not living the truth right now?

[@TobyLee-r8f]

@@savinggift158 But be prepared to be disappointed. It's probably a good idea that the person whose post we are replying to has realistic expectations. Maybe it will work out for them: I do hope that it does.

[@savinggift158]

@@AnnulmentProof Many marriages are not contracted properly. Let the truth be exposed

[@chrishanzek8930]

Thank you for making this very informative video.

[@crystalglopez91623]

My current husband is an ex Member of the church of Ladder Day Saints, he was married civilly with his ex wife , marriage lasted 2 years. No children involved. The tribunal court denied their annulment. We, however went to our local county clerks office and got married. We have a 3 year old and soon welcoming our 2nd son. 1st born was Baptized Catholic, and soon our 2nd one will be too. I pray one day the judge will allow us to marry and we can be able to recieve our Lord in the Eucharist ❤️

[@CatechesisVids]

Since baptisms carried out by Mormons are generally considered invalid, your husband would have had a "natural marriage" to his previous spouse because neither of them would actually be Christians. The bond of a natural marriage is real, but it can be dissolved by a sacramental union. This is called the Pauline Privilege, and (as far as I can tell from the limited info given here) would potentially apply in this case, but only if the previous spouse refused to allow the free exercise of Christianity when your husband converted. Here are further details about Mormon baptism (and why it fails) from the Vatican website: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html If a tribunal has clearly closed the door on a valid union between you and your husband, then I would seek to further understand why they did so - and try accept it as best you are able, which would include living a celibate life with your current spouse.

[@aron137]

Mormon baptisms are invalid. Even if both your husband and his ex wife each received a valid baptism since the divorce, I believe it would be considered "ratum sed non consummatum" which can still be dissolved by the pope. If your husband is the only one of the two of them to get validly baptized since the divorce, then petrine privilege may be applied. If your husband is yet validly baptized, pauline privilege may be applied. I did notice that you omitted anything about your husband entering the Catholic faith. Am I wrong in assuming he is not currently a Catholic? Without any intention of entering into the Catholic faith, they'd have no reason to grant this privilege because it is called a privilege of the faith. If they did determine the marriage to be a valid natural marriage, the only way to resolve this is to appeal on different grounds or him becoming Catholic.

[@TobyLee-r8f]

I am sorry for your situation. Whatever you do, make sure that no one in the Tribunal, or the church in general, disrespects your partner or your marriage.

[@conikutch]

this Video is made when I need it, Thank you

[@simonewilliams7224]

See it’s staunch but true, marriage is not ever to be dissolved.

[@Troyboy23]

Wrong. Catholic marriage. Not all marriages are Catholic marriages nor could all modern marriages meet the Catholic standards and requirements for marriage.

[@Troyboy23]

@@mpkropf5062 the Catholic Church is the representation of Jesus’s kingdom on earth. The Catholic Church is the actual embodiment of Jesus’s words and desires. the only people that have a hard time understanding this are the protestants, who base their entire religion off of false doctrine and counterfeit sacraments sold to them from the English Crowne.

[@Troyboy23]

@@mpkropf5062 Jesus is “The Word”, and his church is the Catholic Church, which is the physical embodiment of his kingdom on earth.

[@mpkropf5062]

@@Troyboy23 not the Church that was built upon a pagan Temple! That’s different from the First Century! First Church was called The Way and The RC claimed they wrote the Bible. Recently discovered the Ethiopian Bible was written 400-500 years before the Catholic Bible! There are some good things in the Church but also a lot of lies! Peter never once claimed to be the Pope and in fact he talked about such heresy in I Peter. I believe he would be very hurt to know he was buried between a pagan cemetery and the Vatican!! That’s disrespectful to build on top of a grave! Whether they are pagan or not! You really need to look at the hidden secrets under the Vatican. That should wake up every Catholic!

[@l-kin3480]

Even if the father is touching the kids inappropriately

[@melissaa8151]

Thanks for this teaching! Can you go into what happens if a party appeals the annulment? What exactly does the Roman Rota do? Going thru this as my annulment was granted by my diocese and dealing with a vindictive ex who wants to stall things for me 😢 so he is appealing to Rome

[@CatechesisVids]

I am sorry to hear about your situation. I confess that I do not know much about the appeals process as it was beyond the scope of my research. I will however say a prayer for you.

[@wallsign4575]

I know Timothy Gordon gave an examination how annulments skyrocketed and encouraged Catholics to appeal their annulment. This obviously upset a lot of Catholics. Jesus does explain three particular reasons why a marriage may not be valid in Matthew 19:12. An examination of this verse breaks down the reasons into mental, physical, and spiritual reasons. The channel gives numerous examples that may fall into these categories.

[@dulcemariatovar9744]

Such a good video, thanks

[@Chio_Ri]

Thank you for this information 😊

[@CatechesisVids]

You're welcome!

[@thisis_chavez]

I prayed that I will become a successful Catholic Social Media Creator like you

[@TobyLee-r8f]

The annulment thing didn't work out for me. After my witnesses failed to come forward, I was told that I needed to find at least three new witnesses, who had known me for five years. As I am from a broken family, and I had relocated twice in the preceding ten years, I didn't have what the Marriage Tribunal was asking for. When I told them this, the secretary for the Tribunal sent me an email saying that if I cannot come up with the witnesses, there was "nothing they could do for me (they did advise me to go to a priest, but I have been unable to get an audience with one)." When my wife told me she felt "disrespected" by the process, I withdrew my petition and ended my candidacy for initiation into the church, spending some time in a Lutheran and a Presbyterian church (my wife's nominal denomination); I am currently leaning towards becoming a Deist. I have no respect whatsoever for the Marriage Tribunal, or the "work" it does; they meddle in affairs that are none of their business, and re-traumatize people who have gone through civil divorce.

[@CatechesisVids]

I'm sorry to hear you had a bad interaction with a tribunal. I would say two things: 1) marriages are presumed to have validity unless proven otherwise according to the canons - and this is to prevent the possibility of adultery through false remarriage. It therefore makes sense that witnesses were required, because obviously the couple should not be the only ones involved in deciding their own case. 2) Tribunals are not a monolith; every diocese has a different one and you may be able to seek the recourse of the tribunal of a different diocese depending on your life circumstances.

[@AnnulmentProof]

Canon 1675 The judge "must be informed that the marriage has irreparably failed.." what authority must inform him?

[@CatechesisVids]

My guy why did you leave like seven comments? That's too many. Your questions don't make sense and they're insufficiently worded for me to respond to them.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids I noticed you had Canon 1675 on your video. I noticed it says before an annulment case the judge must be informed that the marriage is irretrievably broken. If one spouse says it is and the other spouse says it's not, then how does the judge find out which one is correct?

[@CatechesisVids]

@AnnulmentProof Canon 1675 is about reconciling the union, but a nullity tribunal can proceed without the consent of both parties if that's what you're asking.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids no, I'm asking who is to inform the judge of "irreparable?"

[@CatechesisVids]

I do not know who is responsible for that function.

[@AnnulmentProof]

What is the legal definition of the "unitive" end?

[@Kitiwake]

Thank you for a very informative video.

[@CatechesisVids]

You're welcome!

[@AnnulmentProof]

How does "a true lifelong bond" depend on one spouse's willingness to reconcile?

[@CatechesisVids]

The Church generally presumes validity unless the contrary is proven.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids "generally?" Always. The church also says suspicion of invalidity can never justify unilateral separation on own authority.

[@Cotuskise]

If annulment means the marriage never happened, then what’s the status of the children? Illegitimate ? Genuinely asking

[@lili_toni]

Yep. Supposed to be.

[@CatechesisVids]

Sort of, but legitimacy isn't really a modern category for most practical purposes since so many children are conceived out of wedlock today - and in any sense it's more of a legal category than a moral one; legally no, they are not illegitimate. Certainly the children of an invalid marriage should not feel guilty or anything like that. The sexual acts performed by an invalid marriage are technically fornication, but only materially and not formally - ie there is no culpability - assuming they were not aware the marriage was invalid.

[@Troyboy23]

To answer that question, one must first define what an “illegitimate” child is, according to this specific doctrine/world view. For that matter, it would also be helpful to similarly define a “legitimate” one and the same case.

[@vorynrosethorn903]

Yes it makes the illegitimate, the fact that moderns are too debased to care is irrelevant, they are made baseborn by it, and in better times would have lived in shame. It is shame on the church that they do not discourage the culture of sin, in other times they did not hand out annulments as a sort of confirmation of a civil divorce, nor did they pretend that distinctions such as legitimate and illegitimate meant nothing, of course they do, a child born in sin is not exactly in the best state, even the secularists know this, divorce leads to a horrible childhood and serious problems in the child, they need special guidance and discipline, not to be shooed off and told that the heathens abide it so they must be fine.

[@lorraineklimek1677]

My understanding of the Greek word ‘pornea’ is that it refers to sexual sin, and certain translations of the Bible called it adultery. It is the root of the word pornography.

[@CatechesisVids]

It does refer to sexual sin, but the question is whether the sin precedes or follows the union. The Catholics see it as preceding the union, and therefore causing the marriage bond to not take place - making the union unlawful. Please refer to my video on Orthodoxy for more details on the translation of that word. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJ-wZaGfoKaXbc0si=320XWJkvzU-nu_KE

[@hirehammer925]

Mt 14:4 John the Baptist tells Herod it is unlawful for you to take and marry your brothers wife. He is referring to Levitical law. See Leviticus 20:21. The word pornea that Jesus uses is referring to that specific passage. The sexual sins are listed in Leviticus 20. Annulment is man made.

[@deusvult8340]

Do marriages have to sacramental to be indissoluble?

[@CatechesisVids]

All non-sacramental marriages are considered "natural" marriages by the Church. And while they have a conventional kind of permeance to them, they are not truly unbreakable in the same sense as a sacramental marriage. This is the reason the Church permits the "Pauline Privilege", which can really dissolve a natural marriage such that it no longer exists. See my video from last year on this topic for more info: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aoKQXneZgNydbK8si=WXKu7HKvmCx5-BM_

[@FaithinCatholic]

​​​@@CatechesisVids I watched the video but still I wanted a deeper clarification in my mind. If a divorced non-Catholic was once married to a probably non Sacramental marriage or in the Catholic church and desire to convert to Catholiscm, is it Godly for him to marry a Catholic? Will it not contradict the 10 commandments (adultery) for both sides? Is this what it means that thier marriage was dissolved?

[@CatechesisVids]

A natural marriage is between the unbaptized, ie a Hindu or Jew - not simply a non-Catholic. It's desirable that all marriages be perpetual, but a natural marriage can be dissolved while a sacramental one cannot because it better conforms to Eden and to Christ. Hence it is sometimes permitted. At the moment a new sacramental bond is established, the sacramental bond (of a couple exercising the Pauline Privilege) overwrites the flimsier natural bond that previously existed. Christ's command that adultery applies to divorce also refers to sacramental bonds. Mosaic divorce does not seem to be adultery, as the bond was merely natural and could really be dissolved.

[@deusvult8340]

@@CatechesisVids Does a marriage desacralize if one of the persons apostatizes

[@CatechesisVids]

@deusvult8340 A valid, consummated, sacramental marriage is dissolved by no power but death. It does not cease to be sacramental even if someone apostsizes; though one can reject the grace of baptism no one can erase its character on their soul which is perpetual.

[@coydogvt]

I’m 67 and returned to the Catholic Church one year ago after lapsing for about 50 years. I married (20 years ago) a divorced Jewish Woman in a civil marriage who was previously married in a Jewish wedding and they produced one child. Their divorce was 30 years ago. I was not previously married or divorced. Is this a doomed situation if none of the conditions that you listed have been met?

[@CatechesisVids]

Praise God for your return to the Church after a long absence, and I am sorry for the struggles and confusion surrounding your current situation. A "worst case scenario" might be that you would need to live as brother and sister with your current spouse, if the Church does not consider your current union valid - ie to abstain from sex in order to continue to receive the sacrament of the eucharist. It seems from the information you have given me, your present union is likely invalid - but I would speak to a diocesan expert or well educated priest who could give you further advice. Though sacramental marriage is not possible between a baptized person and an unbaptized person, it may be possible to form a valid so-called "natural" marriage - which is a real immaterial bond, though it lacks the added graces of the sacrament, and this type of union is permitted with a dispensation. Obviously however, the previous marriage of your current spouse presents some confusion on this point. Though I have no idea if this is possible in your case, it seems like an ideal situation would be if your spouse came into the Catholic Church. If they did so, even if their previous (non sacramental) marriage was considered valid, it would be possible to dissolve or "overwrite" that previous bond with the stronger sacramental marriage. The Church calls this the "Pauline Privilege" after St. Paul, and I have an older video on it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aoKQXneZgNydbK8si=4SR72T0JrrUrWFlW Again you will need to clarify with an expert in canon law who can give you more clarity, but generally the fact that your current spouse is unbaptized may work in your favor from a canon law perspective. Do not despair, but hope and pray.

[@coydogvt]

Thank you so much for your reply. I have a form here from the diocese and your video and reply are helping to overcome the resistance that I have been up against to face the tribunal. Thank you again and may God bless you!

[@wallsign4575]

@@coydogvt - I believe you’re eligible for the annulment under the Pauline Privilege. I’ve heard the Apostle Paul readily recognized “mixed marriages” produced a particular problem. Unfortunately, I am not sure if this is in scripture itself. Jesus does explain three particular reasons why a marriage may not be valid in Matthew 19:12. An examination of this verse breaks down the reasons into mental, physical, and spiritual reasons. The channel gives numerous examples that may fall into these categories.

[@st.annandst.josephcatholic7504]

Speak to your pastor. Based on the description that you gave, your marriage in a civil ceremony constitutes an Absence of Form situation and renders that marriage invalid from the start. A baptized Catholic is bound to use Catholic form which begins with consulting the pastor and participating in marriage preparation sessions as governed by your diocese, as well as using the Catholic Rite of Matrimony.

[@coydogvt]

It’s my wife who needs the annulment because she was married in a Jewish ceremony and then divorced over 30 years ago. Sorry that my initial post was confusing.

[@AnnulmentProof]

"When someone seeks separation through the church," they must initiate an ecclesiastical trial to identify the innocent and the guilty spouse. Canons 1692-96.

[@richardmh1987]

So one of my brothers (we were all Catholics) married a non denominational protestant woman (I think one of those evangelicals) but they never got a dispensation. Instead they chose to be married by one of our uncles who is a pastor in another non denominational church (pentecostals) and sadly my nephews are not even baptised yet. He went through a very rough divorce after 10 years of marriage and went through a lot to get back on his feet. I pray he comes back to the one true Church founded by Jesus. So, knowing him I doubt he would like to get remarried, but would he need to get a proper annulment or something to go back to the Church? Or just a confession? What would he need to get my nephews baptised? They´re no loger children, they´re teenagers now.

[@CatechesisVids]

I am sorry to hear about your brother, and that your nephews have not yet been baptized. I don't know the circumstances of the divorce with regards to your brother, so he should consult a good priest as far as culpability (if he is willing). The Catechism says this about the topic, "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." Since the marriage is almost certainly not canonically valid, as far as I am aware the only thing barring your brother from receiving the eucharist and returning to Catholic life is a good confession. As for baptism of your nephews, nothing at all prevents their coming into the Church and being baptized - but they would have to be willing to do so themselves (and become catechumens) because the Church considers them to have the use of reason once they are older than seven. This article from Canon Law made easy may also be helpful for greater clarity on that point: canonlawmadeeasy.com/2014/01/09/canon-law-and-non-infant-baptism/

[@richardmh1987]

@@CatechesisVids thank you for your kind response. It happens that she cheated on my brother several times until he got enough and filed for civil divorce. Well, if I have the chance I'll let him know all of this.

[@CatechesisVids]

No problem, good luck!

[@wallsign4575]

Jesus does explain three particular reasons why a marriage may not be valid in Matthew 19:12. An examination of this verse breaks down the reasons into mental, physical, and spiritual reasons. The channel gives numerous examples that may fall into these categories.

[@AnnulmentProof]

A secondary purpose by definition is not essential, and therefore it does not pertain to validity.

[@CatechesisVids]

Any purpose the Church declares as essential is such.

[@AnnulmentProof]

If pornea = invalid marriage, then divorce + annulment = no sin, right?

[@CatechesisVids]

Materially, the couple would have been fornicating since they were not truly married. But formally, it's possible or even likely they believed themselves married - in which case they're not culpable.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids if all marriages are valid pre-annulment, then how could any divorce *not* be a sin?

[@CatechesisVids]

Your question doesn't make sense as worded and I can't tell what you're asking.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids if the exception clause is (invalid marriage), then how can one act on that (divorce) while the marriage is still valid?

[@CatechesisVids]

Divorce doesn't automatically mean the marriage is invalid. Divorce just means separation. A couple who are irreconcilably separated would divorce, and this civil act is an initial sign to the judge that the situation is irreconcilable and thus the nullity process can be pursued. I don't know if that's the same in every diocese. Either way, the Church condemns divorce *and remarriage* not divorce (insofar as one means by divorce, mere legal separation).

[@AnnulmentProof]

What more must one be "capable" of doing besides an act suitable for the generation of children - for validity?

[@CatechesisVids]

Many things. For example, mentally sound.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids mentally sound enough to do what exactly?

[@CatechesisVids]

Commit to the action. Be of sound mind. Understand and act so as to enter into a lifelong bond.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids one must be capable of sound mind to commit to what action exactly?

[@CatechesisVids]

Perform the sacrament of matrimony; to verbally commit oneself to a lifelong bond of husband and wife ordered to the procreation of offspring and the unity of both spouses.

[@AnnulmentProof]

Openness to life is not a "core principle." It is the primary end.

[@CatechesisVids]

Saying it is a core principle is not in conflict with its status as the primary end.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids how many ends can be primary at the same time?

[@CatechesisVids]

The procreative end is primary, and the most important purpose of marriage. But it cannot be separated (at least in a sacramental union) from the unitive. This is what makes something like in vitro fertilization immoral as it is procreative but not unitive.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids can a natural conjugal act be non-unitive?

[@CatechesisVids]

Of course. Take for example marital rape.

[@christopherdavid1561]

my gfs ex husband was a serial cheater, she was faithful and tried save the marriage, but he continued to be a scumbag. Why should she be expected to live with this for the rest of her life? There is NOTHING sacred about what she was forced to endure! I’d say If my lord, Jesus Christ, were physically here today he would agree! My interpretation: the unfaithful should NOT be allowed to remarry and commit further adultery. That is the true meaning of SIN!

[@CatechesisVids]

We don't have to wonder what Christ *would* say were he physically here, since he directly tells us the evils of adultery in the Gospels. If your girlfriend was sacramentally and validly married the first time, then no earthly power whatsoever can ever dissolve her union to her husband - because consummated marriage is absolutely unbreakable. The Church acknowledges legitimate abusive situations where separation is necessary, but the separated couple (unfaithful or otherwise) are not free to form a new bond because the old one still exists. She's "expected to live with this" because that's what marriage is - an unbreakable bond. Now that said, it may be that your girlfriend was not validly married in the first place. But you would have to consult a canon lawyer of your diocese to ascertain that. If her husband intended to adulterate before they started their married life, for instance, then that could mean the bond was invalid. But again, ask your diocesan tribunal.

[@FatherGapon-gw6yo]

If you 86 your spouse then you can remarry. I have serious doubts whether the Catholic church has survived the enlightenment rationalism.

[@CatechesisVids]

If by 86 you mean murder, that's actually an impediment to a new marriage called "Crimen". I didn't cover every possible reason for nullity.

[@FatherGapon-gw6yo]

Its okay as long as you do it before you meet your new spouse.

[@CatechesisVids]

Most normal people wouldn't marry someone who had murdered a previous spouse. And it's a canonical impediment to marriage to lie about a defect of character that would make a spouse not marry you - so the new union would be invalid in any case, let alone that you'd have to find a priest willing to marry someone like that.

[@FatherGapon-gw6yo]

Sure. I just find this almost geometric approach to moral theology so very strange and fragile. But-that’s the west! This is basically the slavophile critique of the western church but personally it resonates.

[@CatechesisVids]

Reason and order are attributes that are perfectly expressed in God; the West correctly recognizes that his law can be learned and applied likewise with reason and order. It is nothing but pride to reject the truths of the faith for being too systematic and ironclad, for they are systematic because God is supremely ordered.

[@AnnulmentProof]

A marriage bond is formed at the instant of consent. It never changes and disappears at death. As Paul VI says marriage "exists independent of love."

[@CatechesisVids]

Yes, precisely. That is the point of the video.

[@lori-joabberton216]

As long as the man does not bash his wife because of his infernally

[@josephg2553]

If you married a Catholic woman who was divorced you cannot receive communion. But if you are convicted of a murder and are in prison but go to confession you can receive communion. Annulment is very expensive and no guarantee you will receive it.

[@CatechesisVids]

I can sort of see where you are coming from, but there are a few problems with this analogy. Firstly, Pope Francis made arrangements in 2015 for the nullity process to be free for impoverished petitioners - though I'm sure the application of that is more or less feasible depending on the financial health of the diocese. A canon lawyer is a real practitioner of law, and their time should be compensated fairly just like a doctor or a civil lawyer. Secondly, the comparison to murder doesn't make sense. Someone who commits one instance of murder and then goes to prison need not be living in a perpetual state of sin since they are not continually murdering, but someone who "marries" a divorced person puts themselves in a perpetual state of sin where they are sinning constantly every time they fornicate with someone else's spouse.

[@durimhalimi8974]

The hypocrisy of the Church lmao

[@AnnulmentProof]

​@@durimhalimi8974 if the hypocrisy ended today, how would you know?

[@TobyLee-r8f]

I kind of feel the same way. A pedophile Catholic can receive absolution in confession, then receive the sacrament, but a divorced and remarried Catholic, unless they go through a time-consuming, traumatizing process (that may or may not be successful, mind you), cannot receive absolution in confession, and cannot receive the sacrament? Meanwhile, a divorced and remarried non-Catholic who wishes to convert cannot do so unless they go through the same process? And the church wonders why fewer and fewer people consider them to have any moral authority? There may not be a more tone-deaf organization in the world today!

[@AnnulmentProof]

Matt 19:9 means you can never divorce, but you can "put away" a guilty spouse. "Guilt" is. Unlawful. Zero to do with nullity. From the Douay Rheims commentary: "Except it be": In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living." U get this wrong in your video.

[@CatechesisVids]

I'm starting to wonder if you're an AI. Your questions are so oddly worded and so numerous. It's not wrong in the video, it's just that you don't like the video's interpretation.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids I learned this from Cornelius a Lapide. Is the doay Rhiems commentary wrong?

[@CatechesisVids]

The douay disagrees with the interpretation of the verse, so yes it conflicts with the interpretation of this video. But it agrees that the man may not remarry - ie, that the sacramental bond endures for all the days of the couples lives.

[@TobyLee-r8f]

So here's my question: My former domestic partner remarried before I did; around 2006-2007, I think. I think it can be reasonably inferred that it probably wasn't a celibate marriage (snark intended). Based on what you're saying, should I not be technically in the clear then as far as the church is concerned (I personally am not concerned about any of this)?

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@TobyLee-r8f "in the clear?"

[@BonnieCloer-xy2yp]

i was married to a catholic we divorced the marriage was not annuled i remarried my 2 husband died do i need to have the marriage be annulled

[@CatechesisVids]

Catholic teaching is that a divorce never dissolves a bond - and has no effect on whether a marriage exists or not. If you were married in a valid Catholic ceremony, and you yourself are baptized, then your first marriage remains intact in the Catholic view. However, that's a lot of ifs since I do not know your specific situation. Please consult a diocesan expert or a solid priest for guidance on this.

[@dashriprock5720]

But he didn't say unlawful..thats only in a couple of the Catholic approved bibles. Every other bible including some Catholic approved bibles says, except for fornication (or a variant) The Greek says "porneia". That being said Im not saying it is an exception.

[@CatechesisVids]

Fornication is a fine translation. It's about what you mean by "fornication".

[@vorynrosethorn903]

From my experience with Catholics who have been through this it does not operate as it says on the tin. Basically it is an expensive and long process in which they comb through technicalities to find an excuse for the marriage not being valid, and in the same way as divorce cuts one way this process is set up to succeed, they will find something and even though the marriage was treated as totally valid until they wanted a divorce, and indeed they had children who are made illegitimate by it, still it basically goes ahead in practice like an ecclesiastical divorce. There might be theories and justifications involved, and maybe they were relevant at some other point in time, but currently annulment is very much a spiritual divorce in the same way as the state offers a legal one. The validity of the marriage was in reality never in doubt, not until a secular divorce was enacted. Judge by how things actual work, anyone can write up justification, especially if it doesn't apply firmly to the process as it actually happens.

[@CatechesisVids]

You are correct that the Church treats a marriage as valid until proven otherwise. This is explicit, for the canons say “Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven”. So of course the marriage was treated as valid until a separation was sought. But that doesn't mean it was. Pope Francis was quoted as saying that he thinks half of marriages are invalid. Although he was probably being hyperbolic, it's a totally possible number. Many things have to be true for a marriage to be valid, and in our modern worlds those things often are not true because our culture is exceedingly vicious. You allude to corruption in the canon law legal system that gives divorces much too easily. I totally believe such a thing is true, particularly in notably bad dioceses like Chicago. This does not mean the absolutely true and honorable principles of Christian marriage at work in the annulment tribunal are bad teachings. It does mean certain canon lawyers will have much to answer for on judgment day - and that they have allowed some persons to adulterate through bad arguments. But that is for God to settle on the final day. However, some cases really are easy and quick to decide. For example, mixed marriages and disparity of cult. If you marry a Protestant as a Catholic, but don't have proper approval, that marriage is automatically invalid - and the "fast process" version of an annulment tribunal can be used to approve separation.

[@AnnulmentProof]

If you had kids, you necessarily had capacity / discretion.

[@CatechesisVids]

Huh? How?

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids because the legal object of consent is to acts which generate children. Canon 1081 - §2. "Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts a perpetual and exclusive right over the body, for acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children."

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids what does the church teach is the legal object of consent that one needs capacity/discretion for?

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids what does the church teach is the legal object of consent that one needs capacity/discretion for?

[@vorynrosethorn903]

This is from reading further comments all very gross, it's rules lawyering, something I despise about modern Catholicism, the jewish practice of scapegoating is the same, it's as if God can't look into your heart and see the truth of the matter and it's motivation. Among medieval Christians oaths themselves were valid, and oath made to God especially so, promises and sworn bonds were inviolable and didn't need a priest to officiate (though one is preferable), the idea that an oath is invalid by a legal technicality is actually gross, it is contemptible. While I might agree that promises with heathens has no validity the man who breaks them all the same has no honour, and a man without honour is no man, let alone a Christian. Keep to your oaths, you would sin less to take a second wife than to break your oath to the first. Do neither, act as though your honour is besides your soul, for it is, never submit to heathery or the immorality of abiding by power because it is power and not because it is good. We are living in dark times, but all the greater the rewards of overcoming, so not compromise an inch for that is to condemn the weak, those who know no better and have no way to resist, to be reconciled to the devil is to welcome in death, whatever the power, if they make peace with the devil they have no good in them. Never relent, the true Church is of Christ, not whichever institution can draw up the best legal argument, unless they actually abide by the will of the Lord it is all farce. Anyone can make justifications, what matters is truth. If Catholics want God's favour stop arguing technical justifications and start acting with his will, that means take your dogma seriously, no compromise, no semantics, no excuses, if you must forsake all worldly things you will do it to follow him.

[@CatechesisVids]

Annulment in Christianity has been a practice well before the modern era, even in the early church. It's unright and unfitting to raise objection to it now. A person should honor their oaths, but 1) a marriage is a vow and not an oath (vows are made to God, while oaths are made with God as witness) and 2) oaths can only be made to do good things - but it is a bad thing for a Catholic to be married outside the Church. Oaths made to do bad things are automatically invalid.

[@tracyalbino-daggett4032]

Any marriage that produces children should NEVER be annulled. The emotional toll on the child is devastating ( I know from experience). That is my I abandoned the catholic faith and am now a Christian

[@CatechesisVids]

Though I am sorry to hear about your situation and I will pray for your return to the Church, it seems to me like you may not have watched the video. Firstly, as I said in the video, the Church does desire that couples dwelling together form a truly a lifelong bond - and reconcile if at all possible. However, the nullity process does not base itself on what the couple want - or even what is "best" in the sense of social good - but only on what that couple has already done at the moment of their original wedding ceremony. If they made their marriage invalid through some particular error, they are not married. The Church does not "make" the union null, it merely recognizes that the union never took place. It is a recognition of a situation that already exists, and not a changing of situation.

[@Linkgt]

Protestants(“Christian’s”) invented the notion of divorce though…. See king Henry the 8th.

[@MissGabriela829]

Your parents are stilk your parents and You were already Christian, you merely became a Protestant.

[@DISTurbedwaffle918]

So you abandoned annulment in favor of a religion that supports the far more open and available divorce? That sounds like regressive thinking.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@CatechesisVids if the essence of marriage is procreation, then procreation proves capacity for validity. Since the primary purpose of marriage is good of the children, said annulments violate childrens / nature.

[@AnnulmentProof]

There is no such thing as an essential "unitive end" of marriage. Just the fact that unitive has no legal definition disqualifies it. Procreation alone is essential. This is why annulments are never good for children, bc they rip nature.

[@CatechesisVids]

Annulments aren't about the children as they are now, it's about the circumstances of the original bond.

[@sheryltemaat7478]

Annulment of a marriage with children is about the children. It ruins their lives. Imagine spending Christmas morning with Mom and her new boyfriend. And Christmas afternoon with Dad and his new woman. So sad. No one needs to file for divorce or nullity. Carry your cross. Keep your anger and disappointments to yourself.

[@patrickmccutcheon9361]

Annulment meaning that the marriage never existed is an interesting notion when the marriage has produced children and the marriage clearly was consummated. It is a wonderful piece of intellectual gymnastics. Apparently it is easier to come up with such a conclusion if the parties seeking the annulment make a substantial donation.

[@CatechesisVids]

"Annulment meaning that the marriage never existed is an interesting notion when the marriage has produced children" The existence of children doesn't really have any bearing on the validity of the marriage unless it concerns something like inability to complete the sexual act - since that eliminates sexual inability as a possible reason for nullity. "and the marriage clearly was consummated" You may be thinking of ratum sed non consummatum, or the power of the pope to dissolve a marriage if it has not be consummated. That is not related to the discussion of annulment as such. "It is a wonderful piece of intellectual gymnastics" How? While certainly some diocese may abuse certain canons, that does not mean any of the principles at work in this video are faulty. "Apparently it is easier to come up with such a conclusion if the parties seeking the annulment make a substantial donation." Pope Francis declared in 2015 that the process should be made free for poor couples.

[@Lancer-y5g]

Certain diocese have a 100% declaration of nullity. Others over 95%. Under Canon 1095 any marriage can be annulled. Once one of the spouses declares “they never felt loved” If you have a annulment past 1970 under canna 1095 and you were married for several years and have children then you have an invalid annulment God will not be mocked

[@MissGabriela829]

I dear family friend went into marriage with the full sacrament, after 8 yrs and 1 child they divorced as he came fukky clean that he was homosexual and could no longer "pretend". They divorced and then she seekend an annulment as he entered into the marriage contract under false pretenses.

[@CatechesisVids]

@user-ne4ly3vh6b I'm sure the "on the ground" situation for some diocese that are infiltrated by bad actors can be very bad, but that doesn't mean the canons themselves - or the principles at work - are bad, only that fallen men are. If a judge knowingly decides that a marriage is nullified that has no basis in fact, he will have to answer to God on the last day.

[@Oliveoil91661]

It all boils down to the same thing. Many people are going to burn because they got fake annulments. Our Lady told us the final battle would be over marriage and the family. She said many marriages were not good and are not of God. She's talking about annulments. When the communists got in the Vatican, they wanted to sabotage marriage.

[@Oliveoil91661]

I have no further comment, however my husband will say this......... WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP ! ! .

[@CatechesisVids]

Are you religious?

[@Oliveoil91661]

@@CatechesisVids From first grade in the next 50 years after that. I've been studying Mother Church for 10 years. Marion Apparitions Demonology Sacred Tradition The Magisterium Witchcraft and demon worship Exorcism And a sorted other stuff. Theologians who used to be Protestants.

[@CatechesisVids]

Alright. So you consider yourself Catholic? If so, this video isn't a load of crap. It's what you are obliged to accept.

[@Oliveoil91661]

AGAIN, YOU ARE INCORRECT!!! Not in its entirety. Simone Williams is correct😊 There are just too many incorrect statements in this video.

[@Oliveoil91661]

Who in Hades are you?? Some 12-year-old who wanted to start a blog?? Who's the grown up that gave you the title? WIFE: this isn't me, this is my husband. However, I do have to kind of agree with him. You apparently don't know much about recent history. Mary warned us about Vatican II, and Communists were inserted into the seminary. If All of this were accurate, The Church would NEVER, EVER, EVER have given away England, because of Henry VIII. All of the eleventy-three million people with annulments are going to find out in a horrible way that they are wrong. Annulments followed the sexual revolution. !!! .

[@efs797]

It's only said foundations when the marriage is valid. There is a need for annulment. Anyone who tells you otherwise has never been connected to an invalid marriage.

[@CatechesisVids]

@mpkropf5062 The litmus test for whether the nullity process is legitimate is whether it is opposed to Christ's teaching, not whether he specifically proposes that one do a specific legal practice. The video clearly outlines the scriptural evidence for annulment at the very start of the video.

[@Oliveoil91661]

Catechesis vids......lol😂 lol😮 😅🤣😹🫢🤔🥳😂😈😁😄😆

[@tomlehr861]

Baloney

[@lucillebonds2196]

The Sacrament of Marriage began in the garden of Eden between Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman He created them in His own Image.

[@tomlehr861]

@@lucillebonds2196 no no no

[@PopeUrbanII-ws7rm]

Dude, he said "no no no." Your argument is dismantled.

[@tomlehr861]

@@PopeUrbanII-ws7rm how so

[@tomlehr861]

@@PopeUrbanII-ws7rm pay to be part of the club,