Annullment

[riconant]

I’m Catholic, and my boyfriend is Presbyterian. He was married to a Presbyterian in a civil ceremony. They now are divorced.

My priest told me that my boyfriend must get a Catholic annullment for us to get married in the Catholic church.

Why??? Neither he nor is ex is Catholic, and they were not married in a church!

 

[kmktexas]

The reason is that since neither he nor his wife were Catholic, a civil ceremony is a valid marriage for them. So currently, regardless of his civil status, he is still validly married and not free to marry again. You can’t marry someone who is already married. There is the possibility that his marriage was missing a component (such as sufficient maturity) and was never really a marriage in the first place. That is why you are being advised to seek an annulment.

I suppose that if the Presbyterian chuch did annulment inquiries, he would be able to go there. But they don’t, as far as I know, and the Catholic church has the ability to perform the proper inquiry and make a determination.

It has little to do with your boyfriend’s religion and everything to do with his marriage.

 

[Seven_Sorrows]

riconant:

I’m Catholic, and my boyfriend is Presbyterian. He was married to a Presbyterian in a civil ceremony. They now are divorced.

My priest told me that my boyfriend must get a Catholic annullment for us to get married in the Catholic church.

Why??? Neither he nor is ex is Catholic, and they were not married in a church!

annullment means that their was never a marriage to begin with. So it would be the Catholic Church saying that your friend was never married because of some reason. If he truly was married (in the eyes of God, the eyes of man don’t matter), then you can’t marry him and you would be committing adultry to do so.

 

[Seven_Sorrows]

you also have to consider…(not for the annulment, but for your relationship). do you really want someone who doesn’t value marriage? if he was divorced, who is to say he won’t do it again? divorce/remarriage is alright in his church, but not yours, so if he divorced you, you would get the short end of the stick.

 

[Seven_Sorrows]

you also have to consider…(not for the annulment, but for your relationship). do you really want someone who doesn’t value marriage? if he was divorced, who is to say he won’t do it again? divorce/remarriage is alright in his church, but not yours, so if he divorced you, you would get the short end of the stick.

 

[JackQ]

Consider this. If your boyfriend was Catholic at the time of his first marriage, then he would be able to get an abbreviated annulment due to defect of form, since they weren’t married in a Catholic church. But since he wasn’t, he has to go through the full blown process. Go figure.

Now I’m an obnoxiously orthodox Catholic who believes fully in the Church’s teaching about marriage. But the way they go about dealing with the issue sometimes leaves me scratching my head.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

riconant:

I’m Catholic, and my boyfriend is Presbyterian. He was married to a Presbyterian in a civil ceremony. They now are divorced.

My priest told me that my boyfriend must get a Catholic annullment for us to get married in the Catholic church.

Why??? Neither he nor is ex is Catholic, and they were not married in a church!

But he wants to Marry a Catholic! As a Catholic you cannot Marry anyone under any circumstances who has been Married and divorced. That is until the Church investigates the prior Marriage and determines if it is valid or not. A Presbyterian who marries a Presbyterian in the Presbyterian church has most likely as far as “Form” goes, entered a valid Marriage. Remember that an Annulment process is a request to determine the validity of a Marriage. It is not a request to somehow officially cancel a Marriage. If his first Marriage is found to be valid then you will not be able to Marry him, anywhere, under any circumstances. It would be best to hold off on any planning until the Annulment process is finished.

 

[pazdziernik]

JackQ:

Consider this. If your boyfriend was Catholic at the time of his first marriage, then he would be able to get an abbreviated annulment due to defect of form, since they weren’t married in a Catholic church. But since he wasn’t, he has to go through the full blown process. Go figure.

Now I’m an obnoxiously orthodox Catholic who believes fully in the Church’s teaching about marriage. But the way they go about dealing with the issue sometimes leaves me scratching my head.

J.Q., Some cases are easy for an eccesial tribunal to make a determination. “defect of form” seems to fall into this category. Others require more diligence. Either way ecclesial tribunals serve the Church in this important matter. Their decisioins are not arbitrary. They have specific guidelines from the magisterium to follow. I’m am so happy that the Catholic Church takes seriously the Sacrament of Marriage and natural marriages as well.

 

[Rhoni10]

Riconant,

I sent you a private message in regards to your post.

 

[JackQ]

pazdziernik:

J.Q., Some cases are easy for an eccesial tribunal to make a determination. “defect of form” seems to fall into this category. Others require more diligence. Either way ecclesial tribunals serve the Church in this important matter. Their decisioins are not arbitrary. They have specific guidelines from the magisterium to follow. I’m am so happy that the Catholic Church takes seriously the Sacrament of Marriage and natural marriages as well.

I too am happy that the Catholic Church takes the Sacrament of Marriage seriously, and I know that tribunal decisions are not arbitrary because they are based on Canon Law. But that’s not the point.

The form of marriage is a positive law enacted at the Council of Trent. It was later made clear that that the formal requirements of marriage did not apply to non-Catholics. But the form is different than the basic elements of marriage, which involves two willing parties who understand the nature of their commitment. Now a Catholic can marry a Protestant in a Protestant service, and all of the basic elements can be met. But if the Catholic later wants to get an annulment, the defect of form basis is readily available. The only logical explanation of this is that the Catholic obviously didn’t understand what he or she was doing since a Catholic who understood marriage would want to get married in a Catholic Church.

My question is, why doesn’t the same rationale apply to divorced and remarried Protestants who want to convert to Catholicism? A friend of mine just converted to Catholicism. He has been married for over twenty years to a woman he met in college, and they have had seven children together. Back in college, before he graduated, he got married to a woman from whom he was quickly divorced. There were no children from that marriage. But in order to receive his sacraments he had to go through a full blown annulment process. Fortunately, even though the process took months, he didn’t have to pay for it, though many tribunals charge. Now if his parents had taken him to the local Catholic church to be baptized instead of a Protestant Church, and even if that was the first and last time he was ever in a Catholic church, he would have been able to avail himself of the defect of form argument.

Now what if due to the passage of time my friend was unable to prove that his first marriage was a nullity? Would he be required to leave his wife and children in order to receive his sacraments? That in itself would be immoral. How about living with his wife but in continence? That is an option that is not well known, and there’s a good chance he wouldn’t be made aware of it. Besides, that’s tough to do. And all of this would be the result of legal niceties.

The Code of Canon Law should not be confused with the Magisterium or the dogmas of the Church. It is a human attempt to implement divine law. What I’ve just outlined did not involve devotion to the teachings of Jesus about marriage, but legalism. And with a world that has gone insane with divorce and remarriage, we need to find better solutions for adults who come to understand the truth of the Catholic religion, but who were divorced and remarried before they came to the realization.

 

[Catholic2003]

JackQ:

Now if his parents had taken him to the local Catholic church to be baptized instead of a Protestant Church, and even if that was the first and last time he was ever in a Catholic church, he would have been able to avail himself of the defect of form argument.

Under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, this wouldn’t be enough to bind him to the canonical form of marriage, because there was an exception for “those born of non-Catholics, even if they are baptized in the Church, but who from infancy grow up in heresy and schism or infidelity or without any religion”. However, this exception was dropped in 1949 because it proved to be unworkable in practice.

The Eastern Orthodox have a much less legalistic approach to second marriages that avoids the situation you bring up.

 

[JackQ]

Catholic2003:

Under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, this wouldn’t be enough to bind him to the canonical form of marriage, because there was an exception for “those born of non-Catholics, even if they are baptized in the Church, but who from infancy grow up in heresy and schism or infidelity or without any religion”. However, this exception was dropped in 1949 because it proved to be unworkable in practice.

The Eastern Orthodox have a much less legalistic approach to second marriages that avoids the situation you bring up.

As I understand it, the Orthodox actually allow divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances. I’m not proposing that at all. All I am saying is that the procedures used for dealing with the issue could stand some improvement. For example, in the case of converts, their previous marriages could be presumed invalid rather than the other way around. Then an abbreviated process could be used, and converts wouldn’t have to wait around for over a year while their marriage issues got resolved. This would involve a legal fiction no worse than defect of form, and wouldn’t involve the possibility of palpable injustices such as when a Catholic man marries a Protestant woman in a Protesant church, the parties bear children, then the Catholic man leaves his wife and children in a midlife crisis, and avails himself of the defect of form rule.

 

[chevalier]

I too am happy that the Catholic Church takes the Sacrament of Marriage seriously, and I know that tribunal decisions are not arbitrary because they are based on Canon Law. But that’s not the point.

There still exist controversial verdicts and I’ve heard canon lawyers say “if the judge had been Father X, nullity would (not) have been declared”.

In my dealings with Canon Law (I’m a secular law student but I chose to attend a one semester course in marital cases under the Catholic Canon Law), I have myself found verdicts that have troubled me and made me think I would have ruled otherwise.

Whoever thinks this is a little problem, doesn’t understand. If there is a bad nullity verdict, there is adultery in remarriage. It’s not like the person is sinning if he/she has acted in good faith, but there is material adultery. There is someone living in an invalid and non-sacramental marriage while being still married in God’s eyes to someone else. Such is the cost of any mistake in declaring nullity. It’s scary and it gives me creeps. I probably should pray for canon law judges so they don’t make this mistake.

Note: if they rule pro vinculo (for the bond, i.e. against nullity) mistakenly, then someone keeps living and having marital relationships in something which isn’t a valid a sacramental marriage. And someone is suffering, as well (would he or she have requested annulment if everything had been all right?) .

It’s a great responsibility to be a judge in marriage law cases. For many people it’s just a legal ruling. Even I probably don’t understand the gravity of the problem myself. But it already gives me creeps and scares me.

 

[kmktexas]

Whoever thinks this is a little problem, doesn’t understand. If there is a bad nullity verdict, there is adultery in remarriage. It’s not like the person is sinning if he/she has acted in good faith, but there is material adultery. There is someone living in an invalid and non-sacramental marriage while being still married in God’s eyes to someone else. Such is the cost of any mistake in declaring nullity. It’s scary and it gives me creeps. I probably should pray for canon law judges so they don’t make this mistake.

But wouldn’t the concept of whatever the Church binds is bound, what it looses is loosed? (sp?) I think that if someone is in that situation, there isn’t any sin (of adultery) involved unless there was some kind of deceit in the information provided to the tribunal.

 

[Catholic2003]

Catholics can receive a dispensation from the canonical form for marriage, by applying to the Catholic Church. The idea behind the current canon law is that since Protestants would never think to apply to the Catholic Church for a dispensation, they get an automatic dispensation from all ecclesiastical requirements. Thus, Protestant first cousins who marry do so validly, while Catholic first cousins would need a dispensation from the bishop in order to marry validly.

The Church could declare all Protestant marriages to be invalid, but think of all the adultery (from all the Protestants who think they are validly married) that would result in the world from such a rule.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

JackQ:

As I understand it, the Orthodox actually allow divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances. I’m not proposing that at all. All I am saying is that the procedures used for dealing with the issue could stand some improvement. For example, in the case of converts, their previous marriages could be presumed invalid rather than the other way around. Then an abbreviated process could be used, and converts wouldn’t have to wait around for over a year while their marriage issues got resolved. This would involve a legal fiction no worse than defect of form, and wouldn’t involve the possibility of palpable injustices such as when a Catholic man marries a Protestant woman in a Protesant church, the parties bear children, then the Catholic man leaves his wife and children in a midlife crisis, and avails himself of the defect of form rule.

He fools no one but himself, surely not God!

 

[Catholic2003]

JackQ:

This would involve a legal fiction no worse than defect of form

I feel I should point out that lack of form isn’t a “legal fiction”, any more than the Real Presence is a “theological fiction”. Jesus Christ put the Church in charge of the sacraments, so the rules that the Church puts in place really do affect those sacraments.

When the Church declared that the civil marriage of Catholics was invalid, this had a real effect – Catholics who married outside the Church no longer recieved the sacrament of matrimony, and the sacramental graces that accompany it.

Thus, to enact a rule that would remove the sacramental graces from all Protestant marriages would be a very significant change indeed, not just “another legal fiction” to help divorced Protestants enter the Catholic Church.

 

[lacoloratura]

Seven Sorrows:

you also have to consider…(not for the annulment, but for your relationship). do you really want someone who doesn’t value marriage? if he was divorced, who is to say he won’t do it again? divorce/remarriage is alright in his church, but not yours, so if he divorced you, you would get the short end of the stick.

The fact that someone has been divorced once doesn’t necessarily mean he/she will do it again! We don’t know the circumstances of the first marriage OR the subsequent divorce, so none of us are in a position to comment on them. Yes, it’s a possibility, but we can only assume that riconant is an adult capable of using her own judgment - and that, if she is seeking a Church marriage, that the priest/deacon will do his job and make sure they receive the proper premarital counseling. I guess I just don’t think it’s anyone’s business to make such a comment, when the poster did not ask for our opinion on this matter.

 

[JackQ]

Catholic2003:

Catholics can receive a dispensation from the canonical form for marriage, by applying to the Catholic Church. The idea behind the current canon law is that since Protestants would never think to apply to the Catholic Church for a dispensation, they get an automatic dispensation from all ecclesiastical requirements. Thus, Protestant first cousins who marry do so validly, while Catholic first cousins would need a dispensation from the bishop in order to marry validly.

The Church could declare all Protestant marriages to be invalid, but think of all the adultery (from all the Protestants who think they are validly married) that would result in the world from such a rule.

But since they don’t know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and that she has authority to make such pronouncements, there marriages couldn’t involve mortal sin because they would lack knowledge of its sinful character.

Besides, I’m not saying that such marriages should be deemed adulterous, but that they not have the presumption of validity when a Protestant converts to Catholicism.

 

[JackQ]

Br. Rich SFO:

He fools no one but himself, surely not God!

That may be, but I’m trying to present a point about Protestants who get divorced, then remarried, then convert to Catholicism. I’m trying to argue for a more individualized approach. It just doesn’t make any sense to tell someone who didn’t grow up Catholic that he cannot partake of the sacraments unless he leaves his wife of twenty years and seven children. But this could theoretically happen under the current system.