Is there a way Michael Schiavo's could have his marriage to Terri anulled?

[housewolf]

I posted this question in the Religion & Theology forum but no one over there seems to know, I'm hoping someone here does know.

It's a theoretical question only, an idea that crossed my mind that I'm curious about.


Michael and Terri were married in the Catholic church, right? Is there a way that Michael could have that marriage anulled? The plea from Terri's mother last night caused me to wonder this.

Considering that Michael has another "wife" and children ...

Suppose he were to consider Terri's mother's request last night that he "give Terri back to them." I'm talking theoretically, now, not what is actually so.

Suppose underneath everything what he really wants is to be able to give the legal protections of marriage to his new family and yet remain in good standing within the Catholic church. Since Catholic's can't divorce, the only way he is free to do that is to have Terri die or get an annulment.

I was just curious as to whether there was a basis within the Catholic church under which he could be granted an annulment, if he wanted one.
Obviously Michael would have to want to do this and take the steps to do it, but I was wondering if there were grounds based on her inablility to perform as a wife, or something like that.

'Course that scenario bypasses the issue that he says he is holding fast to his decision because it's what Terri says she wanted...

I'm just curious about this as a potential alternate scenario in this case. I was raised Cathholic, had 10 years of Catholic girl's schools but don't remember any issue like this ever being discussed.

Thanks,

[regnaD kciN]

1. Why?

There have to be grounds for annulment that would establish that flaws existed in the marriage to begin with -- in other words, factors existed before the wedding that doomed it from the start.

I see nothing in the Schiavo-Schindler marriage that would suggest such flaws were present.

I think that, even if a tribunal in the Church were to decide to grant an annulment for the reasons you suggest (so that she might be returned to the care of her parents), it would create a seriously troublesome precedent. Not only that an annulment can be granted to a valid marriage because of events that only happened many years later, but that a marriage partner, should their spouse develop a debilitating disease, be able to wash their hands of that spouse, walk away, and find a new partner. Somehow, I don't think that this is what "in sickness and in health" would imply...

[Matilda]

2. My understanding of annulment

is that there would have to have been an impediment to the marriage
at the time it took place - e.g., one of the partners never wanted
children, or planned to continue a love affair on the side unbeknown
to the partner, or even that at the time, one partner was too young
to fully understand the commitment he/she was making, etc.

I don't think that situations that arise after the marriage qualify
for an annulment, but I'm not an expert on this!

[ScreamingMeemie]

3. All you really need are witnesses to attest to one of the facts.

My girlfriend's husband was able to get an annulment (so he could marry his mistress and have the marriage blessed in the Church) after 18 years of marriage and 4 children. His claim was that he was too young. If you persist, annulments can be fairly easy to obtain.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Sadly, that does occur. A friend's brother-in-law

abandoned his wife (my friend's sister) and six children after twenty some years of marriage, claiming "I never loved her." He got his annulment and married the Other Woman but I figure what goes around comes around and time wounds all heels.

:shrug:

If I were Pope, though, I'd have them work on changing the rules on annulment, making it so that the victimized spouse would be able to remarry in the Church but the "I was too young" "I never loved her" people would NOT be allowed to marry again in the Church.

But, if I were Pope, that might have to wait until after they sorted out the contraceptive dispute. In a post-industrial world, people just can't support the large families they could in an agricultural, pre-industrial one. The Church needs to re-examine whether or not to "allow" Catholics to use the contraceptives they are in fact already using.

:think:

Forty years ago, I read an article by a priest arguing that the story of Onan shouldn't be interpreted as God hating masturbation and/or contraception but as God hating those who disobey His commands. I'm sure he wasn't the first to suggest that. What we need is a pope who will say it and make the appropriate changes. I'm sure the Protestants have many other theological justifications the Vatican could borrow, too, since they decided contraception was acceptable decades before I read that article.

[hedgehog]

5. To me, the fact that he could abandon wife and children

after 20 years is proof that he was never married in the sacramental sense. How does marriage mirror God's love for us if one partner is out casing new opportunities? It may seem like the heel is getting away with something, but it's the wife who has been freed from an untenable situation. The annulment is a recognition that at least one partner never carried out a life time commitment to the other.

[ElectroPrincess]

6. With regard to Michael Schiavo, the husband, I see him following through

With her wishes not to be kept alive in a cerebrally brain dead state.

The parents were at wit's end the first few years and Michael Schiavo aggressively sought treatment for Terri.

FOX news lies about him and so do the Shindlers. No, I agree that he's far from a Saint but I do NOT judge him harshly and I also believe that their marriage is TRUE in the eyes of Our Lord.

How long do you believe that he should put his life on hold when Terri's has NOT been able to either think or feel for over a decade?

The only reason that I can fathom that he "hold on" is that he honestly believes that Terri would want him to carry out her wishes.

As much as many folks HATE to admit this, Michael Schiavo is her legal Guardian. Nothing you can say, no nasty gossip will change the law.

I request that we all at least accept the fact that "good people" even, good theologian Catholics, are on opposing sides of this issue.

I had parents who acted much like the Schindlers who are, no holds barred, domineering control mongers. If I'm angry with anyone, it's them who seemingly have no respect for her sense of dignity and stated wishes.

[regnaD kciN]

8. Witnesses...ah, there's the rub...

When my first wife decided to end our marriage, the parish priests I talked to all assured me that the case was clear-cut, that there were obvious grounds for declaring that, owing to circumstances in our collective past, we were psychologically incapable of forming a sacramental Christian marriage at the time of our wedding. (I'm going to not go into too much detail here, both to protect our privacy, and also because other of our family members are here on DU.) In any event, when it became time to actually file the petition, the problem became evident: at least one, and probably two "disinterested" witnesses were required to come forward.

The thing was that there was only one far-from-disinterested witness to the circumstances in question, and that person, by testifying to what had happened, would almost certainly destroy their family and professional life, and quite possibly find themselves facing criminal prosecution and jail time. What were the chances that they would voluntarily come forward? Can you say "less than zero?" And, needless to say, there was no way to compel them to testify.

Given this, the conclusion of the priest I spoke to while preparing the petition was that this was a catch-22: although he had no doubt that I had valid grounds for a decree of nullity, owing to the rules of evidence, I was stuck unless I could somehow get the aforementioned person to ruin their life in the name of "helping me out." If not, there was nothing he or the Church could do to help me.

Given this, when I hear various talking heads go on and on about how it's so easy to get an annulment nowadays, and how Rome really needs to "tighten up" on them to "uphold the sanctity of marriage," I seriously feel like giving said pontificator (as opposed to pontiff!) a good :spank: .

[Princess Turandot]

7. I believe that the wife would need to give testimony..

which obviously she was not able to do. I know a number of couples who wanted prior marriages annulled so that they could re-marry in the Church but were unable to do so, because one of the divorced spouses refused to provide any affidavits or testimony to whomever or whatever approves annulments.

One of them was a very odd story in that the divorced person was Jewish. His ex-wife was not Catholic; I'm not sure if she was Jewish or of some other faith. The bride to be had never been married, and a family friend who was a priest was to fly in to marry them. Some time before the wedding, while discussing the plans on the phone, the priest asked the woman if her fiance had ever been married. She said 'yes, but he is Jewish.'(Her friend had no objection to performing a mixed faith marriage; they were planning to raise any children they had as Catholics.) It didn't matter: they still needed an annulment, even tho the fiance was not a Christian. The guy's ex hated his guts so she was never going to cooperate. The bride's dad was a career officer in the Coast Guard and they decided to have the wedding at a chapel on a base here in NYC. They lined up a Judge to marry them. A few days later, the Judge realized where the wedding was to be held, and called to tell them that under the federal separation of powers act, a member of the judiciary could not perform such a ceremony on a military base.
At that point, I might have thought fate was sending me a message, but they persevered and were married by the only person who could do so at the place they wanted: the base commander. As far as I know, they are still happily married.

This story proves to me that the Church needs to re-examine its views on this. The woman was very observant and was devastated that she could not be married in Church, which was impossible short of hiring someone to bump-off her fiance's ex. (Good thing she was Irish.) If Ted Kennedy could get an annulment after decades of marriage and a passel of children, some other standard needs to be set for annulments. Or they should be acknowledged for what they are: Church sanctioned special-case divorces.