Annulment Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zeezoo8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Phemie said:
That is a misunderstanding of what an annulment is.

Because neither he nor his wife were Catholic at the time they got married the Church doesn’t enter into the equation. Mike’s marriage is presumed valid unless it’s proven otherwise.

So, he can either petition for a decree of nullity, which means the Marriage Tribunal will investigate the marriage and determine whether or not it is in fact valid;
OR
he can become a Catholic and petition for dissolution of his valid marriage based on the fact that he is now Catholic and his non-baptized wife doesn’t want to continue in the marriage.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the new changes in Canon Law have anything to do with this situation: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=406769 :confused:

~Liza
 
Just_Lurking said:
OR
He can petition for a Petrine Privilege dissolution of his valid marriage without becoming Catholic, on the grounds that he wishes to marry a Catholic.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t he or his wife have to be baptized at the time of the marriage for Petrine privilege to apply?
 
Phemie said:
Wouldn’t he or his wife have to be baptized at the time of the marriage for Petrine privilege to apply?
Click to expand...
It’s been a while since I read this, but my recollection is that since the 1920’s (?), the Petrine privilege has been extended to include all cases of non-sacramental marriages not strictly covered by the biblical Pauline privilege. I think cameron_lansing posted a link to the precise requirements a while back, but I can’t seem to find it now using the CAF search function.
 
Just_Lurking said:
It’s been a while since I read this, but my recollection is that since the 1920’s (?), the Petrine privilege has been extended to include all cases of non-sacramental marriages not strictly covered by the biblical Pauline privilege. I think cameron_lansing posted a link to the precise requirements a while back, but I can’t seem to find it now using the CAF search function.
Click to expand...
Here is a link to a canon law commentary that seems to support my current understanding. In particular, the following parts:

(a) at least one of the parties to the marriage must have been unbaptized at the time of the marriage and throughout the duration of the common life;

and

Unlike dissolution by the Pauline privilege, dissolution in favor of the faith does not require that an unbaptized spouse be baptized or that a baptized non-Catholic spouse seek full communion with the Catholic Church. If the other conditions are met, the marriage can be dissolved in favor of the faith of a Catholic who wishes to marry one of the parties to the marriage to be dissolved.
 
BBaller said:
No, they were both unbaptized before, during, and after the marriage and divorce. He was baptized after the dissolution.
Click to expand...
No matter what, they still need an annulment or pauline/petrine privilege for his first marriage. He needs to sit down with a priest and figure out how to address the situation.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
No matter what, they still need an annulment or pauline/petrine privilege for his first marriage. He needs to sit down with a priest and figure out how to address the situation.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is that Mike is a married man today. He should not be dating. Period.

~Liza
 
Geremia said:
The Church cannot annul a marriage that never existed in the Church; there would be nothing to annul.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by that. Any exchange of consent that is lawfully given is a valid marriage. Only Catholics are bound by law to be married in the Catholic ceremony (and even that can be dispensed). Two baptized persons who exchange consent are in a sacramental marriage. Two unbaptized persons or one baptized and one unbaptized who exchange consent are in a natural marriage.
 
lizaanne said:
Bottom line is that Mike is a married man today. He should not be dating. Period.

~Liza
Click to expand...
Well to be fair to Mike, its only Catholicism that considers him still married and since he’s not Catholic we can’t expect him to be living by our faith. If he receives an annulment then it would be that he’s not actually married right now.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Well to be fair to Mike, its only Catholicism that considers him still married and since he’s not Catholic we can’t expect him to be living by our faith. If he receives an annulment then it would be that he’s not actually married right now.
Click to expand...
Since when do Catholics have exclusive rights to the Sixth Commandment!!! God’s commands apply to EVERYONE!!! I don’t care if they don’t believe them, God still does!!!

~Liza
 
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

What he’s saying is that Mike is not bound by Canon Law.
 
msugeotech said:
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

What he’s saying is that Mike is not bound by Canon Law.
Click to expand...
But he IS bound by God’s law. So if he’s married - he’s married. Period.

~Liza
 
msugeotech said:
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

What he’s saying is that Mike is not bound by Canon Law.
Click to expand...
Mike is not bound by Canon Law, however the woman he wishes to marry is Catholic and is bound by Canon law. They cannot marry in the Catholic Church until Mike’s previous marriage is invalidated by the Tribunal or dissolved by the Pauline/Peterine Privilege.

I am currently in RCIA, currently un-baptized. I was previously married to an un-baptized person. I am getting married in the Catholic Church in June 2010 to a Catholic man. In order for the church to allow this I had to file for a Pauline Privilege to dissolve my first marriage and my future spouse had to be granted a decree that his first marriage was invalid (the annulment). It does not matter to the church that I was not bound by canon law at the time of my previous marriage. What matters is that to marry a catholic in the catholic church you must conform to Canon law. I am however very thankful for this because it has led me to the catholic faith for which I will be eternally grateful.
 
mswood said:
Mike is not bound by Canon Law, however the woman he wishes to marry is Catholic and is bound by Canon law. They cannot marry in the Catholic Church until Mike’s previous marriage is invalidated by the Tribunal or dissolved by the Pauline/Peterine Privilege.
Click to expand...
The canon law for this is:

Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.
 
Spencerian said:
Natural marriages are *valid *(that is, recognized by the Church) but are not sacramental (that is, unable to be dissolved by any power on Earth, as it is a bond through God).
Click to expand...
BTW, Sacramental marriages that are *ratum tantum *are dissoluble. But sacramental marriages that are *ratum et consummatum *are indissoluble except by death.

tee
 
msugeotech said:
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

What he’s saying is that Mike is not bound by Canon Law.
Click to expand...
But not all canons are *merely ecclesiastical *-- Some are (or reflect) natural or divine law.

A Catholic is bound to a particular *form *of marriage (in front of an appropriate witness, or dispensed, et cetera) – This is merely ecclesiastical.

All persons are bound by natural and divine laws – No man (Catholic or otherwise), eg, may marry his sister.

tee
Still Not A Canon Lawyer
 
Just_Lurking said:
The canon law for this is:

Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.
Click to expand...
I think you may have missed the point of my response. I was responding to someone else that basically used the argument that Mike wasn’t bound by cannon law and did not need an annulment. I was pointing out that while Mike is not bound by cannon law if he is wanting to marry a non-catholic, but since he is wanting to marry a Catholic, in a Catholic church they are bound by canon law.
 
mswood said:
I think you may have missed the point of my response. I was responding to someone else that basically used the argument that Mike wasn’t bound by cannon law and did not need an annulment. I was pointing out that while Mike is not bound by cannon law if he is wanting to marry a non-catholic, but since he is wanting to marry a Catholic, in a Catholic church they are bound by canon law.
Click to expand...
I was just providing the official canon law documentation for your statement.
 
I understand the argument - I really do. My point is that when you say, “Mike shouldn’t be dating anyone, he’s married”, is a little iffy since HE is not bound by Canon Law. I DO agree that the OP’s aunt should know better, and that in order to get married, Mike will need to have his previous marriage declared invalid. I’m saying that from Mike’s point of view, he doesn’t see that he’s doing anything wrong.

I’ve been thru the annulment process, and I understand the situation and what it all means. But before becoming Catholic, my wife and I were not bound by Canon Law, so until I understood the Church’s point of view, in my eyes, I was NOT still married to my ex when I married my current wife.

Make sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top