That’s right: if the first attempted marriage was itself sexually immoral or for some reason invalid -— let’s say, just for example, there was force or coercion involved —— then there can be an annulment because it wasn’t “right” to begin with.
Absolutely every sin can be forgiven with repentance, confession and absolution. And as you rightly said, the key word is “repentance”, which has to include a firm intention to turn away from sin and not just go back and keep committing it.
And would adultery on behalf of one of the parties invalidate that marriage, especially if they continue to unrepentantly do so?
See post 8, point #1. In reading the Greek text, I simply can’t see the word porneia meaning such a strict definition of invalid marriages, especially when it’s used in so many other ways in the other 25 places it’s used in the NT.
This seems, to me, like deciding the answer before examining the evidence.
But weren't the majority of marriages at that time arranged..."forced" if you will?
The only NT approved reason for divorce is adultery.
The Greek uses the verb μοιχεύω meaning "I commit adultery" in the passages in question (Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11)
Matthew 19:9 notes if anyone has been engaged in sexual immorality (πορνεία), defined as fornication, whoredom, idolatry, then that is allowed as a valid cause of divorce.
In all of these instances, infidelity within the marriage is the only valid cause of divorce.
There is no provision for a "forced" marriage or any of the other definitions of the RCC nor is there any provision for an annulment.
The New American Bible inserts the following into Matthew 19:9
I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
Even the Douay-Rheims translates 19:9 as
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. Matt 19:9, Douay Rheims
No other translation renders the text as the NAB does.
The RCC is in extreme error in allowing this translation to enter the public. It is not a sound Biblical translation and cannot be defended.