Could You Help Explain the Annulment Process and the Requisites thereof?

[TRUMP WON]

My Friend, a former pentecostal, is eagerly awaiting entry to the Catholic Church at our FSSP parish. Today I introduced him to our executive pastor.
Last year he divorced his wife for her habitual violations against the Sixth Commandment. My Friend spent years forgiving Her time several times. The final straw for Him came when He discovered Her confiding to a friend irritation that He had thus far refused to divorce Her for Her behavior.
Today our priest informed Him that to receive an annulment He "must produce at least one witness to testify that before the marriage contract was made the Bride confided in Him [the witness] that She [the Bride] does not intend to uphold the marriage contract." Our priest made it clear that The Wife's own admission today is insufficient.

Obviously this is the excellent standard of evidence for the case, but as I am not familiar with annulments or Canon Law concerning them, I suspect this is only the highest standard to which one would aspire to have to make His case. My question: Is there a lesser degree of evidence essentially necessary to make one's case for an annulment? My Friend has impure text messages She sent to other men. She even became pregnant by one of them while they were still legally married. As a matter of the divorce, She admitted that the child is not His, etc.

Our priest and my Friend expect to talk soon over the phone for more details, but in the meantime I am left a little perplexed by the apparent standard of evidence required. Is there something I am missing? Could someone help me understand this?

Thanks in advance.

P.S., My Friend does feel comfortable talking to Her friends/family and inquiring whether any of them were ever told by Her before the marriage that She never intended to uphold the contract. The problem is, which Bride in their right mind would confide to a friend or family-member that She does not intend to uphold the contract? It seems like an impassable standard.

[james03]

I would think that the anti-wife's signed statement would suffice.  If it is only the husband saying my wife told me such-and-such, that starts getting sketchy.

Because if the wife signs an affidavit, and she lies, then the guilt will be upon her, not the husband or the priest.

But assuming the anti-wife did not intend to live as a wife (before they married), then the marriage was a sham.  That's the whole point of annulment. 

[TRUMP WON]

I would think that the anti-wife's signed statement would suffice.  If it is only the husband saying my wife told me such-and-such, that starts getting sketchy.


But assuming the anti-wife did not intend to live as a wife (before they married), then the marriage was a sham.  That's the whole point of annulment. 

Our priest apparently told him that his wife's own admission is not sufficient. I'm sure he will readdress this in their next appointment.

I understand the point of an annulment. I just didn't realize they are so difficult to obtain in situations as seemingly straightforward as this one. (Divorced convert entering the Church without shortage of evidence for charges against the 6th Commandment).
Thank You for Your response. This is an FSSP parish, btw, with an experienced priest of 20 years.

[james03]

He can go to a novus ordo tribunal.  They hand out annulments like candy.

Is the wife agreeable to sign an affidavit?  I can't imagine a woman signing something that basically says "I'm a slut".

[Kent]

The reason that a spouse's testimony is worthless for purposes of disproving intent is that the spouse already manifested their will to marry when they, well, stood up and publicly expressed that will before God, man, Church, and community.

The law presumes that people mean what they profess. It's of course possible for someone to lie, but the proof must be of significant contrary weight to the existing proof attesting to the validity of the contract.

Unfortunate for your friend moving forward, but it could not be any other way.

[Kent]

I would think that the anti-wife's signed statement would suffice.  If it is only the husband saying my wife told me such-and-such, that starts getting sketchy.


But assuming the anti-wife did not intend to live as a wife (before they married), then the marriage was a sham.  That's the whole point of annulment. 

Our priest apparently told him that his wife's own admission is not sufficient. I'm sure he will readdress this in their next appointment.

I understand the point of an annulment. I just didn't realize they are so difficult to obtain in situations as seemingly straightforward as this one. (Divorced convert entering the Church without shortage of evidence for charges against the 6th Commandment).
Thank You for Your response. This is an FSSP parish, btw, with an experienced priest of 20 years.

Traditionally (i.e., by the 1917 code of canon law and the practices of the pre-conciliar Roman Rota), there are limited causes that render a marriage contract fraudulent. Some of these include mistaken identity (i.e., you thought you were marrying Jane but really you were marrying Joan), want of form (i.e., a Catholic who is bound to the Church's form of marriage marries outside of that form), and want of consent. What you're talking about is want of consent.

Usually if a marriage is declared null due to want of consent it is in cases of abduction. But when an adult goes through all the laborious steps to get married and then goes through the marital vows and says that they vow to do x, y, and z, the natural and legal presumption is that they consented to it. You have to have really, really exceptional proof to show that someone did not in fact mean to do all of that.

[Greg]

He can go to a novus ordo tribunal.

What other types are there?

[james03]

Good point. 

[Lynne]

Why is he trying to get an annulment? They weren't married in a Catholic church, were they? He wasn't Catholic when he got married.

[TRUMP WON]

Why is he trying to get an annulment? They weren't married in a Catholic church, were they? He wasn't Catholic when he got married.

Correct.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Why is he trying to get an annulment? They weren't married in a Catholic church, were they? He wasn't Catholic when he got married.

All baptized Christians are capable of contracting a valid sacramental marriage.

This does not include the "Christians" who only appear to be baptized but are not actually baptized due to defects in matter, form, or their beliefs regarding the Holy Trinity.

It's unfortunate because someone in a state of sin would not enjoy the sacramental graces that help to sustain a marriage.