Questions about annulments

[pnwmom]

My parents divorced after more than two decades and never got an annulment. My mother was advised that it wouldn't be possible, and money was very tight, so she didn't fight it. She eventually became involved with another Catholic man, but they were never free to marry, and he eventually died. I always felt so sorry that she couldn't have had the loving marriage that she deserved.

There were two reasons she was told she couldn't get an annulment. Were they correct or was she misled?

The first was that my father had no interest in participating in the process. Can you get an annulment if one of the parties washes his hands of the process?

The second was that my father was gay. I know that as recently as the 70's, being gay was not considered to be an impediment to marriage with a woman. Essentially, the Church didn't recognize that a person was gay. In other words, there were gay actions, which were sinful -- but not gay human beings. Also, gay sex wasn't considered to be adultery, since adultery by definition involved heterosexual relations.

Since my father was capable of sexual relations with my mother -- they had several children -- the fact that he knew he was inclined toward men before the marriage, and was involved with men throughout the marriage, didn't matter. He didn't marry with the intention to be unfaithful, according to the theory of the Church, because gay sex didn't violate those promises -- it was sinful, but not adulterous. (In other words, a man is still faithful to his wife if he has gay sex but not if he has a mistress.)

Is this still the position of the Church -- that gay sex doesn't constitute adultery, and continuing to have gay sex after marriage doesn't invalidate a marriage -- or has the view changed over the last few decades?

[rug]

1. Some info.

It could have been decided without without his participation, as long as he got notice.

His being gay could well have been an impediment to his intent to enter into a marriage with your mother. Similarly, that fact and your mother's ignorance of that fact, likely gave her grounds for annulment.

Here's a link to the grounds for annulment: http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/grounds_annul.htm#grounds

It's taken from the 1983 Code of Canon Law not the 1917 Code in effect when your parents separated. However, like most of Catholic teaching, it's stated to be more an elucidation than a change.

[pnwmom]

2. You're right, the Catholic marriage information that I read

was from a book published in the 70's, and the grounds for annulment were less comprehensive -- I couldn't see anything that would apply to my parents' case. But the revised code offers a number of possibilities.

It's unfortunate that the priest led her to believe that my father's cooperation was essential, but she might not have been successful anyway.

I'm glad that the situation has improved since then.

Thanks for your info!

[DemBones DemBones]

4. I think the priest gave your mother very bad advice.

Maybe he was an older priest and opposed to annulments. Or maybe he was just misinformed. Priests are never infallible, that's for sure. They all have their strengths and their weaknesses.

She should have contacted the Marriage Tribunal and talked with a Canon lawyer. My priest would have helped her do this.

I'm sorry she had to suffer. I think the marriage would not have been considered a sacramental one and she would have gotten an annulment.

[shrike]

3. My parents' marriage was annulled after 30+ years of marriage

Neither of them were gay, but it really wasn't much of a problem. I suspect her priest was either misinformed or woefully behind the times.

The other spouse does not have to participate -- so I am told. My husband, who is not Catholic, had his first marriage annulled so that we could have our marriage blessed by a priest -- i.e., be remarried by one basically. It meant something to me, and it meant SO much to my parents that I'm glad I did it. We were married in a civil wedding first. His first wife did not participate, but did not object, either. Neither of them is too religious. She earned my everlasting gratitude, btw, for that. She and he have a pretty decent relationship post-divorce, though.