Annulment, defect, or nothing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DetCheshire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DetCheshire

Guest
I have two friends wanting marriage in the Catholic Church in the somewhat near future:
Situations:

#1
A Catholic married a non-Catholic in a civil ceremony on a paddleboat, ceremony conducted by the captain (not a priest). Couple never had children, female was physically abused, left, filed and was granted divorce (civil). Duration, 2 years.

#2
A Catholic married a non-Catholic in a civil ceremony in a non-denominational “meditation” chapel, ceremony officiated by a judge. Couple never had children, husband was unfaithful, filed for divorce, wife agreed, divorce was granted (civil). Duration 2.5 years

What steps need to be done, if any, to annul/defect of form?
 
They would need to talk to their respective priests.
It sounds like a simple “defect of form”, but I imagine there is more to both stories, there always seems to be.
The priest is the best place to start.
 
It’s always best for them to consult their local priest, but just off-the-cuff, unless the Catholics had permission to marry without a priest as witness, or of course unless there was a priest witness at either of their weddings, you would probably be looking at two separate defect-of-form situations.

But that’s just a guess based on limited information. Their priest would be the best source of correct information.

–Jen
 
Thank you for replying, I’ll encourage them to go to their priest.
Not much more to it than that…neither has kids, no priests witness or present, not in a church, didn’t ask for permission…not sure what else would be considered. I know each friend was raised Catholic, but didn’t practice it again until recently.
 
There might be something relating to if they ever formally joined a Protestant church or formally declared themselves atheists, but I’m not sure. I know I was asked about it on my application, but since I hadn’t done either, I didn’t ask about what it would have meant if I had.

–Jen
 
the first step is to approach the priest at the parish they are going to get married at.
 
Got one to get an appointment…one to go.

I’ll post any updates they give for this thread, with their permission, of course.
 
"Oneofthewomen:
It sounds like a simple “defect of form”
Click to expand...
revert_jen said:
It’s always best for them to consult their local priest, but just off-the-cuff, unless the Catholics had permission to marry without a priest as witness, or of course unless there was a priest witness at either of their weddings, you would probably be looking at two separate defect-of-form situations.
Click to expand...
Actually, “defect of form” means that the couple attempted to do things according to the rules of the Catholic Church, but that somewhere along the line, they missed something, and so they didn’t actually get married according to proper form.

You’re right – these persons need to talk to their priests, who will ask them all of the relevant questions and will advise them appropriately.

However, if we’re just responding ‘off-the-cuff’, then it would seem that these are instances of lack of form – in other words, there was no attempt at following Catholic form for marriage. In such a case (and we can’t promise that these are such cases, but only that they appear to be so, based on the OP’s brief description), a full formal nullity proceeding is not required. Rather, only a documentary process is necessary. (In other words, the process establishes that the Catholic did not attempt to follow Catholic form, thus rendering the marriage invalid from its beginning.)
 
I agree with the responses so far.

I would add that at some point they will need to produce marriage and divorce certificates and (assuming they were baptized in a Catholic church) arrange to have their baptismal parish send sacramental records to the current Catholic parish.

Their priest will tell them all this. I only mention it because some people don’t know where they were baptized and need to find out from family.
 
Gorgias said:
Actually, “defect of form” means that the couple attempted to do things according to the rules of the Catholic Church, but that somewhere along the line, they missed something, and so they didn’t actually get married according to proper form.
…]
However, if we’re just responding ‘off-the-cuff’, then it would seem that these are instances of lack of form – in other words, there was no attempt at following Catholic form for marriage.
…]
Click to expand...
Sorry, I incorrectly use the two terms interchangeably. Technically, at least in my diocese, the actual thing I was talking about is “Absence of form.” I looked it up this time. 🙂

–Jen
 
revert_jen said:
Sorry, I incorrectly use the two terms interchangeably. Technically, at least in my diocese, the actual thing I was talking about is “Absence of form.”
Click to expand...
No problems. The two terms (“defect of form” and “lack of form”) are used universally in the Church, not just in your diocese. The difference between the two is as I mentioned, above.

There’s a real (and significant) difference between the two, in terms of nullity processes: a ‘defect of form’ case needs to be proven in a full nullity proceeding (which tends to take 1-2 years, give or take, here in the States), whereas a ‘lack of form’ case can be resolved by a documentary process, which costs less and takes much less time.
 
DetCheshire said:
…not sure what else would be considered. I know each friend was raised Catholic, but didn’t practice it again until recently.
Click to expand...
One of the questions that the Priest may ask about the “non-Catholic” is “were they baptized and if so, where and how”. I put “non-Catholic” in quotes for a reason here - if the “non-Catholic” does not self identify as Catholic but were baptized Catholic, they are Catholic which means you may need more than just the lack of form.

It is the reasons like this that a Priest needs to be consulted.
 
TheDoctor said:
I put “non-Catholic” in quotes for a reason here - if the “non-Catholic” does not self identify as Catholic but were baptized Catholic, they are Catholic which means you may need more than just the lack of form.
Click to expand...
Provided at least one of the parties is established to be Catholic and there was lack of form, the baptismal/denominational status of the other party will not affect the nullity - adding another Catholic into the mix doesn’t make a lack of form nullity any more or less null.
 
Gorgias said:
No problems. The two terms (“defect of form” and “lack of form”) are used universally in the Church, not just in your diocese. The difference between the two is as I mentioned, above.

There’s a real (and significant) difference between the two, in terms of nullity processes: a ‘defect of form’ case needs to be proven in a full nullity proceeding (which tends to take 1-2 years, give or take, here in the States), whereas a ‘lack of form’ case can be resolved by a documentary process, which costs less and takes much less time.
Click to expand...
Hello,

Let’s go even further into the technicalities: a defect of form case can be documentary (see c. 1686). A “lack of form” case does not follow a process you can find in the Code, documentary or otherwise. It is an entirely informal investigation with no petitioner, respondent, citation, decision. Tribunals need to be careful, actually, to make sure they don’t make “lack of form cases” look like a legal process.

Dan
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
Provided at least one of the parties is established to be Catholic and there was lack of form, the baptismal/denominational status of the other party will not affect the nullity - adding another Catholic into the mix doesn’t make a lack of form nullity any more or less null.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if that is correct but I may be mistaken. As I understand it, if only one party is Catholic the resolution is a “paperwork” (for lack of a better term) exercise that does not need to go to the tribunal. If both parties are Catholic, the resolution needs to go to the tribunal, which can take much longer. The result should still be the same (nullity due to absence of form) but the process would be different.
 
Does it make a difference if the non-Catholic was a baptized Christian or not?

If the non-Catholic was non-Christian, my limited understanding is that there just plain isn’t a marriage as far as the Church is concerned, so why would anything more than receiving Reconciliation for the non-marital sexual relations be needed at all?
 
TheDoctor said:
I am not sure if that is correct but I may be mistaken. As I understand it, if only one party is Catholic the resolution is a “paperwork” (for lack of a better term) exercise that does not need to go to the tribunal. If both parties are Catholic, the resolution needs to go to the tribunal, which can take much longer. The result should still be the same (nullity due to absence of form) but the process would be different.
Click to expand...
No difference at all. All one has to do is provide a recent Certificate of Baptism that shows no marriage, the marriage documents that show where the marriage was celebrated (one diocese I dealt with requires certified photocopies of the original Registration of Marriage from the Gov’t), and the divorce papers. In the US & Canada dioceses usually deal with this through the Tribunal but in some cases it’s dealt completely by the priest preparing the couple for marriage. It all depends on the Bishop.
 
Phemie said:
No difference at all. All one has to do is provide a recent Certificate of Baptism that shows no marriage, the marriage documents that show where the marriage was celebrated (one diocese I dealt with requires certified photocopies of the original Registration of Marriage from the Gov’t), and the divorce papers. In the US & Canada dioceses usually deal with this through the Tribunal but in some cases it’s dealt completely by the priest preparing the couple for marriage. It all depends on the Bishop.
Click to expand...
Thanks Phemie. Thanks Andreas. I appreciate the information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top