Annullment

[JackQ]

Catholic2003:

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.

The term “legal fiction” is used in civil law to denote something presumed for the sake of interpreting an event. It is not the same as something false, although it can be, in fact, false. I suppose it isn’t a term properly applied to canon law. But canon law does presume that marriages are valid, and uses that as a starting point when marriages are litigated. In most cases that’s reasonable, I think. But I also think that the opposite presumption should prevail regarding Protestant marriages. Actually, all I’m saying is that converts should be able to utilize the same defect of form argument that Catholics can.

Now this is not the same as having the Magisterium declare Protestant or, for that matter, Buddhist marriages invalid or adulterous. Canon law is not the Magisterium. It is a human law. True, it attempts to implement the divine law as revealed to the Church, but it is itself a human law. That’s why it changes sometimes.

 

[puzzleannie]

JackQ:

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.

the current system is to recognize all marriages as valid until proven otherwise, all marriages, those between two Catholics, between two non-Catholic Christians, those between non-Christians, those witnessed by a preacher or a civil official – all marriages. changing the “system” would have to imply the Church refuse to recognize some marriages as valid leading to all kinds of confusion. for instance, to fail to recognize a Presbyterian’s previous marriage because he now wants to marry a Catholic would be to deny the validity of all marriages contracted by all Presbyterians – highly insulting to that denomination.

as for making sense, the only thing that makes sense is to proclaim the truth. A Catholic who marries someone who is already married voluntarily separates him or herself from communion with the Catholic Church, choosing the personal love over the universal love, and therefore voluntarily relinquishes the protection of the sacraments. They lock and bar the door themselves, the Church doesn’t do that.

 

[Catholic2003]

JackQ:

Actually, all I’m saying is that converts should be able to utilize the same defect of form argument that Catholics can.

This was discussed a few years ago, back when Dignitas Connubii was in draft form. Eastern Rite canon law already holds each non-Catholic Christian to the required form of marriage for their own church or ecclesial community. However, the only significant Protestant community that imposes a requirement for the form of marriage is the Anglicans, so this wouldn’t affect other Protestants who wish to join the Catholic Church.

JackQ:

Canon law is not the Magisterium. It is a human law. True, it attempts to implement the divine law as revealed to the Church, but it is itself a human law. That’s why it changes sometimes.

You are confusing many different concepts here, and missing the extremely important point that I tried to make with my last post. The Magisterium is the living teaching authority of the Church. Canon law comes from the legislative authority of the Church. It really doesn’t make sense to try to compare the two in order to dismiss canon law as unimportant.

Secondly, the distinction of divine law versus human law refers to the source of the law (and its changeability, as you point out), not the jurisdiction of the law. God follows canon law, even the changeable ecclesiastical law regarding sacraments, because Christ put the Church in charge of the sacraments.

So when two Protestant first cousins married in 1982, their marriage was not valid. They did not receive the sacrament of matrimony, because God, following the 1917 Code of Canon Law, did not impart any sacramental graces to the couple. But when a similar pair of Protestant first cousins married in 1984, their marriage was valid. They did receive the sacrament of matrimony, because God, following the 1983 Code of Canon Law, did impart sacramental grace to the couple. All this happened even though neither couple were even aware of Catholic canon law. (That’s what happens when the one, true Church makes a change regarding the sacraments.)

So the changes that you are proposing have significant spiritual effects, far beyond the issue of divorced and remarried Protestants joining the Catholic Church.

P.S. The Church has no jurisdiction over the marriage of two non-Christians.

P.P.S. The issue of “presumption of validity” is a secondary one. It relates to who has the burden of proof, and what a tribunal should assume when insufficient proof has been presented. It wouldn’t affect anything in cases where all the facts were clear-cut.

 

[JackQ]

puzzleannie:

the current system is to recognize all marriages as valid until proven otherwise, all marriages, those between two Catholics, between two non-Catholic Christians, those between non-Christians, those witnessed by a preacher or a civil official – all marriages. changing the “system” would have to imply the Church refuse to recognize some marriages as valid leading to all kinds of confusion. for instance, to fail to recognize a Presbyterian’s previous marriage because he now wants to marry a Catholic would be to deny the validity of all marriages contracted by all Presbyterians – highly insulting to that denomination.

Of course, you’ve correctly stated the current state of canon law. I’m saying that it should be modified in the manner I suggested. As far as insulting Presbyterians and others, defect of form is already a feature of canon law pertaining to marriages. I am simply suggesting that it be extended to converts to Catholicism from other denominations and religions, or, in the alternative, that such marriages not have the presumption of validity in annulment proceedings. There is no way to gaze into people’s hearts to determine the validity of a marriage. So objective criteria is used. I am only suggesting a slight alteration in the criteria.

puzzleannie:

as for making sense, the only thing that makes sense is to proclaim the truth. A Catholic who marries someone who is already married voluntarily separates him or herself from communion with the Catholic Church, choosing the personal love over the universal love, and therefore voluntarily relinquishes the protection of the sacraments. They lock and bar the door themselves, the Church doesn’t do that.

Well, of course, truth is what we should be aiming at. The truth in this connection is that people who are not raised Catholic do not have the understanding of marriage that Catholics have. Precious few will, for example, fully appreciate that marriage is an indissoluble bond, though there are examples to the contrary. But under current practice, the one seeking a declaration of nullity carries the burden of proof. If the marriage in question lasted only a couple of years and took place thirty years ago, evidence is going to be hard to produce. Someone in this situation who seeks to convert to Catholicism is going to have a tough go of it (and, I might add, might even be charged filing fees), and might be confronted with choices that he should not be required to make. Such people didn’t know they were supposed to obey the Church when they got divorced and remarried. To say that they themselves locked and barred the door is sophistry.

The strictest rule is not always the right one. As the Master himself put it, “if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent.” (Matthew 12:7)

 

[JackQ]

Catholic2003:

This was discussed a few years ago, back when Dignitas Connubii was in draft form. Eastern Rite canon law already holds each non-Catholic Christian to the required form of marriage for their own church or ecclesial community. However, the only significant Protestant community that imposes a requirement for the form of marriage is the Anglicans, so this wouldn’t affect other Protestants who wish to join the Catholic Church.

Well, I’m talking about the Code applicable to the Latin rite. What I’m actually doing is making a couple of suggestions to alleviate what is, in my point of view, an unnecessary burden on certain adult converts.

Catholic2003:

You are confusing many different concepts here, and missing the extremely important point that I tried to make with my last post. The Magisterium is the living teaching authority of the Church. Canon law comes from the legislative authority of the Church. It really doesn’t make sense to try to compare the two in order to dismiss canon law as unimportant.

I’m not trying to dismiss canon law as unimportant. It can, however, be changed, unlike dogmas. My suggestions for change are in accord with the Magisterium.

Catholic2003:

Secondly, the distinction of divine law versus human law refers to the source of the law (and its changeability, as you point out), not the jurisdiction of the law. God follows canon law, even the changeable ecclesiastical law regarding sacraments, because Christ put the Church in charge of the sacraments.

So when two Protestant first cousins married in 1982, their marriage was not valid. They did not receive the sacrament of matrimony, because God, following the 1917 Code of Canon Law, did not impart any sacramental graces to the couple. But when a similar pair of Protestant first cousins married in 1984, their marriage was valid. They did receive the sacrament of matrimony, because God, following the 1983 Code of Canon Law, did impart sacramental grace to the couple. All this happened even though neither couple were even aware of Catholic canon law. (That’s what happens when the one, true Church makes a change regarding the sacraments.)
So the changes that you are proposing have significant spiritual effects, far beyond the issue of divorced and remarried Protestants joining the Catholic Church.

The 1983 Code says the Protestants are not bound by the ritual aspects of marriage. It doesn’t sanctify marriage between people too closely related. Besides, converts from Protestantism who were married, divorced, and remarried before 1983 still must seek annullments before they are admitted to the sacraments. Sacramental grace was not imparted by operation of the Code; that’s just not sound theology. Something isn’t true because the Church proclaims it; the Church proclaims it because it is true. But this infallibility does not apply to the Code.

Catholic2003:

P.S. The Church has no jurisdiction over the marriage of two non-Christians.

The Church will pass upon the validity of such a marriage if there is a divorce, a remarriage, and a subsequent conversion. It is true, however, that a marriage between two unbaptized people is not recognized as a sacrament.

Catholic2003:

P.P.S. The issue of “presumption of validity” is a secondary one. It relates to who has the burden of proof, and what a tribunal should assume when insufficient proof has been presented. It wouldn’t affect anything in cases where all the facts were clear-cut.

Well, in a way you’re making my point. My suggestion regarding the presumption of validity wouldn’t necessarily result in an annulment decree for all Protestant marriages. What I’m proposing really isn’t all that earth-shattering.

 

[Catholic2003]

JackQ:

Well, I’m talking about the Code applicable to the Latin rite. What I’m actually doing is making a couple of suggestions to alleviate what is, in my point of view, an unnecessary burden on certain adult converts.

I understand you are talking about changing the Latin Rite code. My comment relates to (rumors of) a discussion a few years back by some Church officials who also wanted to change the Latin Rite code to recognize a requirement of form for Protestant marriages. My point was that the upshot of this discussion was that such a change would have a small impact, only affecting Anglicans.

JackQ:

The 1983 Code says the Protestants are not bound by the ritual aspects of marriage. It doesn’t sanctify marriage between people too closely related.

My Protestant marriage examples where canonically accurate. The 1917 Code of Canon Law required Protestant first cousins to seek a Catholic dispensation before they could validly marry. The 1983 Code of Canon Law recognized that Protestants don’t know or care to seek dispensations from the Catholic Church, and so granted them an “automatic dispensation” from all ecclesiastical requirements.

JackQ:

Sacramental grace was not imparted by operation of the Code; that’s just not sound theology. Something isn’t true because the Church proclaims it; the Church proclaims it because it is true.

Well, at least now it seems like you understand what I was trying to say. Now, you just need to do enough research on your own to see that it is true.

The Church, through its legislative authority, does have the power to block sacramental grace through the operation of its canon law. This is in fact what Catholic lack of form is all about. If you think that two Catholics who marry in a civil ceremony really do receive the sacrament of matrimony, and that the “lack of form” annulment they could obtain is just a wink-wink-nudge-nudge kind of deal for the Catholic Church to condone adultery in a subsequent Church marriage, you are quite mistaken.

JackQ:

But this infallibility does not apply to the Code.

Infaillibility is a concept relating to the teaching authorithy of the Church. So of course it doesn’t apply to the legislative authority of the Church.

 

[mcgregor6]

JackQ:

Well, I’m talking about the Code applicable to the Latin rite. What I’m actually doing is making a couple of suggestions to alleviate what is, in my point of view, an unnecessary burden on certain adult converts.

I’m not trying to dismiss canon law as unimportant. It can, however, be changed, unlike dogmas. My suggestions for change are in accord with the Magisterium.

The 1983 Code says the Protestants are not bound by the ritual aspects of marriage. It doesn’t sanctify marriage between people too closely related. Besides, converts from Protestantism who were married, divorced, and remarried before 1983 still must seek annullments before they are admitted to the sacraments. Sacramental grace was not imparted by operation of the Code; that’s just not sound theology. Something isn’t true because the Church proclaims it; the Church proclaims it because it is true. But this infallibility does not apply to the Code.

The Church will pass upon the validity of such a marriage if there is a divorce, a remarriage, and a subsequent conversion. It is true, however, that a marriage between two unbaptized people is not recognized as a sacrament.

Well, in a way you’re making my point. My suggestion regarding the presumption of validity wouldn’t necessarily result in an annulment decree for all Protestant marriages. What I’m proposing really isn’t all that earth-shattering.

Am I understanding this to mean that if neither party were baptized then it would not really be a marriage to the Catholic Church? I am very interested in becoming a Catholic because of my break with the Episcopal Church but have thought since I was divorced I could not become a Catholic. My present husband is the only one I have married since Baptism? Would this matter?
Thank you for any help you can give me. t

 

[axolotl]

We really don’t have enough information about your situation McGregor 6. Marriages can be valid but not sacramental. It is possible that your first marriage can be dissolved using Petrine Priveledge. These cases must be personally approved by the Pope. I don’t know enough about your first and sencond husbands to know if this is even possible in your case.

As always, talk to a priest. Seek help from your tribunal. You need them to guide you through a process that can seem quite Byzantine.

 

[stbruno]

familyministries.org/www.inthespiritofcana.org/2.6.1.htm

In addition to needing an annullment, which is simpler in the case of two Protestants than if a Catholic was previously marriage, consider checking out the advice from inthespiritofcana.org website regarding, prior marriages. Good and helpful advice that you should consider in your desire to marry someone who has been previously married.

 

[Catholic2003]

mcgregor6:

Thank you for any help you can give me.

axolotl gives good advice: talk to a priest about your specific situation.

Depending on the circumstance, you may be eligible for the Pauline privilege, which is easier than the Petrine privilege. Or you may have grounds for an annulment.

 

[axolotl]

Yes. After hearing more of your situation in another thread (marriage at 16) annulment does seem possible.

 

[EAnd]

Hi everybody,

I’ve been reading with interest the discussion on annulment and hope you all don’t mind if I jump in with a question. I’m a non-Catholic (formally) on a journey to Rome, having come to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church. To me this means accepting the teaching of the Church in order to understand it, not understanding it in order to see if I can accept it. In this way I’ve come to embrace the dogmas and doctrines most problematic to Protestants. However, I think I need some help with annulment.

I thank God for the inmovable stand of the Church on the permanence of marriage. And annulment makes sense to me in general. A marriage entered into on false pretenses is not valid. But what I’ve heard about the actual practice of annulment (admittedly not much) troubles me.

I have a friend from a country in Europe who is cradle Catholic but has left the Church. When she was a teenager, her Catholic father left her mother and moved in with another woman. For 30+ years he lived with this woman in sin in the Church’s eyes. Now he has come back to his Catholic faith, and stopped co-habiting with this woman. However, he wants to get an annulment from my friends mother in order to marry his new partner.

According to my friends, her mother has been called in by the Bishop and required to take psychological tests, in an effort to establish whether she was mentally sound enough to enter into a marriage – 37 years ago! How can psychological tests have anything to say about a persons mental state 37 hears earlier?

Does it sound like my friend has misunderstood or misinterpreted the process? Or is the process in dire need of reform in some countries?

In general I have a hard time understanding annulment of long marriages where there are children involved. As you might imagine, my friend is torn apart by the prospect of this annulment. She was devastated when her father left. Now it’s like he’s leaving all over again. If the Church says that her parents were never really married, it will be like saying her family never existed, she was an “illegitimate” child, the claim to his affection that was so violated when he left was only a fiction.

Please help me understand!

Blessings,

EA

 

[wwben47]

I have read with interest all these replies concerning annullment…I am a 58 year old born and baptized in a Presbyterian home. In Viet Nam my first exposeure to the Catholic Church came when a friend asked me to attend Mass with him.
I have spent the rest of my adult life wondering why I felt like such a failure and outsider at faith. Early on I turned to alcohol looking for some…peace.
Thirteen years ago God gave me a way to live without alcohol…but that inner search was still there…I never felt “at home” in a protestant church…There seemed a coldness and a sense that I could never be “good enough”. A year ago a woman told me that even though I was divorced I COULD go to Catholic Church. (God Bless her!)
My first marriage was to a much younger Catholic girl in the church…After a year she couldnt take my way of life and left. She divorced me and I then remarried twice …once in a protestant church and once in a civil ceremony.
I felt a “presence” the first time I attended Mass here in our little town…And I look forward to being there…I asked the local priest about converting but he is being transferred and has left it to his successor. It breaks my heart to assume I will never be able to take the sacraments…BUT! I know that God understands my heart and as long as I am allowed I will continue to attend… I suppose it is easy for some who perhaps havent fought some of lifes battles to say “you should have thought of that when you got married all those times.” Yes…I should have…but the point is I was one of his most miserable children all that time and one buried in sin doesnt place the churchs law at the top of his prioritys list.
If I am never able to take the sacraments, will I be condemned in the Churchs eyes?
When I die…Will I be eligible to be buried in this church I have come to love?
I apolgize for being so long winded…But at times I have felt like a drowning man clutching at straws.
For those of you…especially the younger ones…who are questioning your Catholic faith…CLING to that faith!..Pray!..Take it from one who has tried all the other ways…Holy Mother Church is the light that will ALWAYS be true.
God Bless

 

[TOME]

EA, What your friend’s mother is being asked to do is only a part of the process of attempting to discover as best as humanly possible if both people were able to enter freely (with out any impediments such as psychological - an example of this would be perhaps the marriage was a means of escape younger people use to get away from home - economic and even physical) into this Sacrament. It is a thorough process so I wouldn’t be too upset by a part of the process and consider the whole. Something to remember, the Sacrament of Matrimony is a Sacrament of the union of the two people getting married therefore a Sacrament could exist even if there wasn’t a Church wedding and at times the Sacrament wasn’t present even though there was a Church wedding. It really does depend on the to disposition of the wife and husband - that is the love they had for each other and the freedom that was present at the wedding to express and sanctify that love through the Sacrament of Matrimony.