annulments

[Maximilian]

There is something in Church law that says a couple in a valid marriage cannot separate ( that is not live together ) from each other with out the Churches authorization. So an annulment, if possible, is required to safely separate from ones spouse irregardless of whether one wishes to remarry or not. canon law 1151-1155

That's not the way it actually works. No diocese in the US will start work on an annulment until you already have a divorce decree. So the couple must have been living separately for a long time before they are even allowed to apply for an annulment

[OCLittleFlower]

If the NO is so bad at teaching the Faith, doesn't it follow, then, that the laity are poorly catechized, and then that they are invalidly contracting marriages?

Very possibly.  Either way, there is a crisis surrounding marriage, especially in the US.  Either the tribunals are granting merit-less annulments, or people are so poorly catechized that they can't manage to marry validly.  Neither situation looks good for the Church.

I know that here in Orange County, there was a group of women who were caught falsifying evidence for each other's annulments at a party (literally sitting around, drinking wine and plotting false testimony), and things got quite a bit stricter after that.  I believe that was in the 80s or 90s.  Not sure what it's like now.

[Miriam_M]

Have we become that retarded or insane?

With regard to the moral life and logical thought, yes, actually.

[dolores]

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

That's not true, according to Canon Law.

"Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate"

And if you don't recognize 1983. Here's 1917:

Can 1114. Legitimi sunt filii concepti aut nati ex matrimonio valido vel putativo, nisi parentibus ob sollemnem professionem religiosam vel susceptum ordinem sacrum prohibitus tempore conceptionis fuerit usus matrimonii antea contracti.

http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/cic17lat.html

English translation for those who can't speak Latin:

Canon 1114. Legitimate children are those conceived or born in valid marriage, or in marriage contracted in good faith though invalidly.  If married people make solemn profession in a Religious Order, or if the husband receives major orders, the use of marriage is forbidden to them, and if by intercourse after such profession or ordination a child is conceived and born, it is not considered legitimate.

[Azelie]

If the NO is so bad at teaching the Faith, doesn't it follow, then, that the laity are poorly catechized, and then that they are invalidly contracting marriages?

That was one point that always made sense to me, but no one ever mentions.  You think of it as I do.  It's sort of a logic type thing.

[Azelie]

Also, in addition to my above post, many people who seek annulments were not married as Catholics, but wish to enter the Church.  I do not profess to know the answers to the question of whether annulments are granted too easily or not, but these are some of the things I have wondered.  And now we have the Amoris Laticia document to spread confusion, which I have undoubtedly spelled wrong.

[Josephine87]

If the NO is so bad at teaching the Faith, doesn't it follow, then, that the laity are poorly catechized, and then that they are invalidly contracting marriages?

Very possibly.  Either way, there is a crisis surrounding marriage, especially in the US.  Either the tribunals are granting merit-less annulments, or people are so poorly catechized that they can't manage to marry validly.  Neither situation looks good for the Church.

I know that here in Orange County, there was a group of women who were caught falsifying evidence for each other's annulments at a party (literally sitting around, drinking wine and plotting false testimony), and things got quite a bit stricter after that.  I believe that was in the 80s or 90s.  Not sure what it's like now.

I read a blog called Zippy Catholic that mentions this issue and the blogger makes a great point:  if the officials of the Church, such as Pope Francis--who has said the majority of marriages are invalid--really believe there are so many Catholic marriages in peril, they would spring into action to convalidate and make them right.  They either believe this and don't care/are completely incompetent or they don't really believe it and have bad intentions.  I am going with the former.

[Miriam_M]

if the officials of the Church, such as Pope Francis--who has said the majority of marriages are invalid--really believe there are so many Catholic marriages in peril, they would spring into action to convalidate and make them right.  They either believe this and don't care/are completely incompetent or they don't really believe it and have bad intentions.

I completely agree.  This has been obvious to me for a very long time.

[YeOldeFustilarians]

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

Actually, the kids aren't viewed as bastards because they were presumed legitimate.

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

That's not true, according to Canon Law.

"Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate"

And if you don't recognize 1983. Here's 1917:

Can 1114. Legitimi sunt filii concepti aut nati ex matrimonio valido vel putativo, nisi parentibus ob sollemnem professionem religiosam vel susceptum ordinem sacrum prohibitus tempore conceptionis fuerit usus matrimonii antea contracti.

http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/cic17lat.html

Matrimonium Putativum ("putative marriage") ends when certainty about invalidity for both parties is established (C. 1015 §4, 1917).  Which is precisely what occurs with a declaration of nullity.

ETA: In other words, canon 1114 says that the Church regards as legitimate those children who are born of a putative marriage, but not once it is certain that the marriage is no longer putative.  A declaration of nullity is a declaration that there is no marriage, not even a putative one. 

This makes sense in light of the Church's canons on marriage.  The law grants many favors to marriage, including the unusual presumption of sacramental validity even in the presence of positive doubt.  It should follow then that the Church generously presumes legitimacy of children produced out of any attempted marriage.  But (on the hypothesis that the N.O. has the authority to grant annulments in the first place, of course) once judgment is rendered against the validity of the marriage and the couples' are made certain of their non-marriage, the law presuming the legitimacy of the children obviously ceases, since the condition of at least a putative marriage has ended.

[Gardener]

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

Actually, the kids aren't viewed as bastards because they were presumed legitimate.

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

That's not true, according to Canon Law.

"Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate"

And if you don't recognize 1983. Here's 1917:

Can 1114. Legitimi sunt filii concepti aut nati ex matrimonio valido vel putativo, nisi parentibus ob sollemnem professionem religiosam vel susceptum ordinem sacrum prohibitus tempore conceptionis fuerit usus matrimonii antea contracti.

http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/cic17lat.html

Matrimonium Putativum ("putative marriage") ends when certainty about invalidity for both parties is established (C. 1015 §4, 1917).  Which is precisely what occurs with a declaration of nullity.

Legitimacy is a question of law, not validity. One is not suddenly illegitimate when previously recognized as such legitimate under law.

[YeOldeFustilarians]

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

Actually, the kids aren't viewed as bastards because they were presumed legitimate.

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

That's not true, according to Canon Law.

"Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate"

And if you don't recognize 1983. Here's 1917:

Can 1114. Legitimi sunt filii concepti aut nati ex matrimonio valido vel putativo, nisi parentibus ob sollemnem professionem religiosam vel susceptum ordinem sacrum prohibitus tempore conceptionis fuerit usus matrimonii antea contracti.

http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/cic17lat.html

Matrimonium Putativum ("putative marriage") ends when certainty about invalidity for both parties is established (C. 1015 §4, 1917).  Which is precisely what occurs with a declaration of nullity.

Legitimacy is a question of law, not validity. One is not suddenly illegitimate when previously recognized as such legitimate under law.

Hehe, well, that's probably the most confusing way to put it.  I know what you're getting at, but look:

The legitimacy of children in the eyes of the Church is a matter of the Church's law, and it has certain consequences-- namely, the ability of those children to later enter certain religious offices.  Now, as a matter of the Church's law, the Church regards as legitimate the children of valid marriages, with the "exception" of the children born of putative marriages-- a technical term describing attempted marriages that the law assumes valid, but which are ontologically invalid.  And it isn't really an exception, properly speaking, since the canons also say that attempted marriages are presumed valid anyways, until actually proven invalid.

Anyways, legitimacy is a question of both law and (marriage) validity.  The law itself makes the rules about legitimacy based on what the law views as a valid and invalid marriage.  Ontologically, we know that children born outside of valid wedlock are illegitimate no matter what, so I don't see any reason to view the issue from a purely ontological perspective, since there is really no effect to be observed.  It is on legal grounds where we observe effects and consequences in this instance, and on legal grounds the Church's laws do not continue to presume legitimate those children who are born of legally "defined" non-marriages.

ETA: fixed a typo, (invalid to illegitimate) and mildly rephrased for better clarity.

[dolores]

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

Actually, the kids aren't viewed as bastards because they were presumed legitimate.

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

That's not true, according to Canon Law.

"Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate"

And if you don't recognize 1983. Here's 1917:

Can 1114. Legitimi sunt filii concepti aut nati ex matrimonio valido vel putativo, nisi parentibus ob sollemnem professionem religiosam vel susceptum ordinem sacrum prohibitus tempore conceptionis fuerit usus matrimonii antea contracti.

http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/cic17lat.html

Matrimonium Putativum ("putative marriage") ends when certainty about invalidity for both parties is established (C. 1015 §4, 1917).  Which is precisely what occurs with a declaration of nullity.

ETA: In other words, canon 1114 says that the Church regards as legitimate those children who are born of a putative marriage, but not once it is certain that the marriage is no longer putative.  A declaration of nullity is a declaration that there is no marriage, not even a putative one. 

This makes sense in light of the Church's canons on marriage.  The law grants many favors to marriage, including the unusual presumption of sacramental validity even in the presence of positive doubt.  It should follow then that the Church generously presumes legitimacy of children produced out of any attempted marriage.  But (on the hypothesis that the N.O. has the authority to grant annulments in the first place, of course) once judgment is rendered against the validity of the marriage and the couples' are made certain of their non-marriage, the law presuming the legitimacy of the children obviously ceases, since the condition of at least a putative marriage has ended.

Isn't the question though what the conditions were at the time the child was conceived or born, according to the language of the canon?  If a child was born into a putative marriage, that was only later declared to be invalid, at the time of the birth the child was legitimate under canon law.  I've heard of illegimate children being legitimized, but never the other way around.

[Josephine87]

Isn't the question though what the conditions were at the time the child was conceived or born, according to the language of the canon?  If a child was born into a putative marriage, that was only later declared to be invalid, at the time of the birth the child was legitimate under canon law.  I've heard of illegimate children being legitimized, but never the other way around.

When you're Henry VIII you can legitimize, de-legitimize, re-legetimize...it's all gravy 

[Gardener]

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

Actually, the kids aren't viewed as bastards because they were presumed legitimate.

An annulment is a declaration from the Church that a marriage attempted was never validly contracted.  When you get an annulment, it is the Church judging that the woman you regarded as your wife was not, and that the children you had are illegitimate.  So no, hopefully it is never necessary to get an annulment because it is reflective of a sad and scandalous reality.

That's not true, according to Canon Law.

"Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate"

And if you don't recognize 1983. Here's 1917:

Can 1114. Legitimi sunt filii concepti aut nati ex matrimonio valido vel putativo, nisi parentibus ob sollemnem professionem religiosam vel susceptum ordinem sacrum prohibitus tempore conceptionis fuerit usus matrimonii antea contracti.

http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/cic17lat.html

Matrimonium Putativum ("putative marriage") ends when certainty about invalidity for both parties is established (C. 1015 §4, 1917).  Which is precisely what occurs with a declaration of nullity.

Legitimacy is a question of law, not validity. One is not suddenly illegitimate when previously recognized as such legitimate under law.

Hehe, well, that's probably the most confusing way to put it.  I know what you're getting at, but look:

The legitimacy of children in the eyes of the Church is a matter of the Church's law, and it has certain consequences-- namely, the ability of those children to later enter certain religious offices.  Now, as a matter of the Church's law, the Church regards as legitimate the children of valid marriages, with the "exception" of the children born of putative marriages-- a technical term describing attempted marriages that the law assumes valid, but which are ontologically invalid.  And it isn't really an exception, properly speaking, since the canons also say that attempted marriages are presumed valid anyways, until actually proven invalid.

Anyways, legitimacy is a question of both law and validity.  The law itself makes the rules about legitimacy based on what the law views as valid and invalid.  Ontologically, we know that children born outside of wedlock are invalid no matter what, so I don't see any reason to view the issue from a purely ontological perspective, since there is really no effect to be observed.  It is on legal grounds where we observe effects and consequences in this instance, and on legal grounds the Church's laws do not continue to presume legitimate those children who are born of legally "defined" non-marriages.

The law states that children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate. Conceived or born; it never retroactively delegitimizes them. That the putative marriage is later declared invalid does not make those children retroactively illegitimate. You're reading into and extrapolating something which the law itself never specifies and specifically denies, actually.

No child is ever invalid; they're either illegitimate or legitimate.

You have no support for this position because it's false and the Church does not hold it.

[YeOldeFustilarians]

That's an excellent question Dolores and the answer to me is not particularly clear from the commentaries I've read. 

It isn't as though legitimization is a process conducted ceremoniously.  It has to do with how the Church views the person, and what the person's role in the Church can be.  That being the case, I haven't "heard" one thing or another about some person who was legitimized or even "illegitimized"-- I don't think there'd be a way to know unless the person admitted it themselves, or unless one was in a position to learn pertinent facts (e.g., an ordinary investigating the man's fitness for orders). 

Reading over it a few times I would cede that it's possible to read from it what you have read, although I tend toward reading it a different way for the reasons provided, particularly in my second reply to Gardener.