Hopefully, that helps people understand where this thread originates.
Legalism.
Only death truly resolves the question of annulment. Why? The decision is never truly final because:
o It’s dependent on honesty and conscious of the parties involved.
• The tribunal only makes it’s decision based upon this honesty, and the tribunal can err
o It’s dependant on the efforts of the tribunal to ensure a just investigation and decision
• An unjust investigation most likely cannot discover the true nature of the bond
"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."
The decision of a tribunal, after appeals, is final.
Canon law is promulgated directly by the Holy See, no council is involved. And canon law itself is not "infallibly defined," but of course it reflects and implements various dogmata of the Faith which are infallible definitions.
For example, the statement that "a valid and consummated marriage between baptized Christians cannot be dissolved except by death" is infallibly defined dogma taken straight from the Gospels. That naturally gives rise to the question, "What constitutes a valid and consummated marriage between baptized Christians?", and the whole mechanism for answering that question is what is specified by canon law.
You forgot to include the tribunal's going-rate (to give the petitioner the decision s/he wants)...
In preparing the case for annulment I prayerfully looked at our relationship. We were married in the eyes of civil society, but it was obvious that our marriage was NOT a Christian marriage, as outlined in Ephesians. Both tribunals agreed with my case and a decree of nullity was issued.
The Civil marriage required a divorce to break the legal marriage (we were married in the eyes of the state so the kids were not "Bastards" as uninformed people often say).
Looking at the selfishness in so many marriages today, half of all marriages could be annulled, not because the Church tribunals are "Annulment mills", but because in today's warped society woman are not willing to be "Submissive to their husbands as unto the Lord", and husbands refuse to "Love their wives like Christ loved the Church", always lifting them up and ready to die before breaking their vows.
All I know and have seen it works fast for the rich and titled, but slow or not at all for the average person. It takes years if you are a "nobody" but only a few weeks or months if you are a Kennedy or a Kerry.
What evidence do you use to claim that Kerry has been granted (not just applied for) an annulment?
Do poor people ever get annulments?
I can not believe this debate. First of all, it's very convenient for the Catholic Church to annul a marriage, which declares it to be invalid, even though it's a Sacrament. And then they declare that the children are still legitimate in the eyes of the Church. I've been married in the Catholic Church twice. The first time I did not convert and remained Lutheran. I was hired as a teacher at a Catholic school. Our divorce was a no-fault. We simply had drifted apart.
I met and became engaged to a Catholic{never married.} I was denied an annulment from my first husband, even though he didn't fight it. However, I was granted one just two weeks before our planned wedding{in a Lutheran church.} I was no longer a teacher but I had remained friends with the Priest and Sister Principal of the school. They wrote letters and, as Father said, twisted a few arms. We had a second ceremony in a Catholic church.
I became a Catholic 3 years after marrying. We had one child. I taught CCD, was a Reader at Mass, and conducted Bible Studies. After 14 years we decided to separate and got a no-fault divorce. I attended Mass but didn't receive Communion. I still taught CCD. Two years after the divorce my ex-husband obtained an annulment. This time it was his wife to be who knew "some one" who was able to push it through. I frankly don't care and am on very good terms with my ex and his wife. But it does seem rather hypocritical on the part of the Church. So much for a Sacrament.
In your opinion, is there valid reason for nullification? I haven't started the process, yet (and I am about to be remarried outside of the church on Saturday and we opted against waiting out for the nullification). In my opinion, my ex was completely incapable of meaning the vows he took as evidenced by breakdowns he had before and after the wedding, as well as infidelity from very early on. I am curious as to your view.
The real problem with U.S. annulments (that I see) is that they are almost never contested in good faith.
Most times, the ex-spouse can't be bothered to respond.
And, alas, most times that the ex-spouse DOES respond, it's to oppose the annulment out of spite or out of irrelevant or mistaken motives (such as an effort to preserve the legitimacy of the children, when their legitimacy is never put at question by an annulment).
Good faith contests of petitions would enable the Tribunal to take evidence from both sides and make intelligent, well-considered decisions.
I doubt you'll ever see more good faith contests, though, because there's essentially no benefit to a respondent to oppose a petition. What does someone have to gain by taking time out to defend the validity of a marriage to someone who cheated, or whom one cheated on, or who beat one, or whom one beat?