What if he never gets the first marriage annulled? I mean, if he doesn’t continue with the petition he already started…what then? Where would I stand?
rofl thats pretty much what i get out of the entire things as well.
JohnYes.Chevy can correct me if I am wrong but I gather that:
a) his (the lying lout of which we speak - with love, of course) was not free to marry you because his marriage had not been determined to be null.
b) this impediment to marriage, kept from you at the time of your consent to marry him, is grounds for The Church to determine that your marriage to him ( the lying lout of which we speak - with love, of course) is null.
Did I do good, Chev?
Thank you. The man was not free to marry. Even if the impediment ceases, consent must still persist for the marriage to be convalidated, so it’s not like a bigamous marriage becomes sacramental the moment the previous marriage is declared null. Even though it actually can be convalidated retroactively (I thought it couldn’t but it could, thanks to a certain more informed poster who graciously corrected me and whom I won’t name because he might prefer to stay anonymous), the consent must still persist and consent can’t be supplied by any authority whatsoever. In short, Lexee, because he was marrying you bigamously, there’s the impediment there and if you don’t want to be married to him, he can’t get the marriage with you convalidated against your dissent.Can I petition for the decree of nullity now? I mean, do I have to have a divorce decree in hand before I file the paperwork with the tribunal? The reason I ask is because in other circumstances the divorce needs to be finalized before paperwork can be submitted, but because he was not free to marry me to begin with then it shouldn’t matter if I’m divorced or not…right?Yes.
Besides, right now, his first marriage is still assumed valid and the impediment persists (i.e. he’s still not free to marry you now), if you petition for the decree of nullity, it will have to be granted.
, but my understanding is that yes, your civil divorce must be finalized before you can be issued a decree of nullity, no matter the circumstances of the marriage. The Church does not, to my knowledge, ever grant these decrees in cases in which the parties are still legally married.American dioceses tend to require a divorce decree (which I don’t support, just in case it’s understood I do) before a nullity claim submission is accepted, but you’re very right that in your case it shouldn’t matter. You need to ask them, I’m afraid. Yours seems to be one of the cases that should be pushed by promotor iustitiae if you didn’t (kind of like a public prosecutor in the Church’s judicial structures), because the impediment is one that cannot be dispensed, so they should actually initiate the proceeding even in spite of your objection, should they learn about the facts. If that’s the case, I really doubt they should still require a civil divorce decree from you, but it’s not like I’d be horribly surprised.
It’s just the practice in American dioceses. In Poland, there have been cases of nullity granted but divorce refused (we had more stringent divorce laws in the past and many canon law nullity grounds didn’t make it as civil law divorce grounds, while the scope of civil nullity was minimal). Normally, in case of impediments which cannot be dispensed, promotor iustitiae should initiate the proceedings even in spite of the spouses’ objections, e.g. should they turn out to be biological siblings seperated at war.I’m sure Chev will follow this up
Get the paperwork started right now. You can start the proceedings even without a divorce.
