[RooRoobird20]

Adultery/fornication (chronic) by my first husband was the reason my annulment was granted in 2004 by the Archdiocese of New Mexico and the diocese of Phoenix.

You’re wrong in this case. I have the paperwork to prove it.

[amihow]

It was not the adultery fornication which was chronic that was the basis for your annulment.

It almost certainly was was a separate problem which existed before your marriage that resulted in such behaviors, usually designated as “the ONABILITY to fulfill the ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE.

[af_vet_1981]

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 8/5/2006:

Adultery is NOT a grounds for marital nullity. For a marriage to be declared invalid, causes for nullity must exist from the beginning of the marriage. It cannot simply be adultery. If that was the case, then all one needs to do to get out of a marriage is go and commit adultery.

Of course, adultery may be an indication of other problems in a marriage and may be a relevant circumstance to a case for nullity. For example, someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder might freely commit adultery, having no concern for anyone but him or herself. The existence of this disorder might impede a person from assuming the essential obligations of marriage.

The Church does recognize two situations were separation is permitted while the bond of marriage endures. The first is adultery -- the innocent party has a right (although not an obligation) to separate. And the second is danger -- the party in danger has a right to separate and also to take children out of danger. If a separate occurs, then the note that you mention about civil divorce applies. However, a civil divorce does not mean that the marriage (in the eyes of God and the Church) is dissolved.

I cannot tell anyone whether they should separate or not, but in the case you are describing she has the right to.