J
Just_Lurking
Guest
Yes. This is required before anyone can even apply to a Catholic Church tribunal in the U.S. for an annulment.
From a state court judge.
- Status
B
Benadam
Guest
The Church decides when it has eneogh info to judge. I believe Pope Benedict called the people employed in the processes of annulment to find ways to quicken the process. We have to remember , they are called to refine the methods of aquiring the necessary info. Maybe that info is lost forever for what ever reason and it can’t be determined if a marriage didn’t happen.
D
dmar198
Guest
A wedding ceremony might have happened, the Church doesn’t deny that. But the marriage was INVALID, i.e. not a true marriage for some reason. A biblical example is the marriage of Herod to his brother’s wife in Mark 6:17-18: "Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’ " The Baptist didn’t say, “You should divorce her,” but “your marriage is unlawful,” i.e. invalid, it was a farce, a mere ceremony with no substance. There was no true marriage, only a wedding ceremony. That is the same with annulments today: they are not anything like divorce because a divorce (supposedly) dissolves a marriage. An annulment, though, does not: only an invalid marriage can be annulled. An annulment does not dissolve a marriage because an annulment can only be granted when the “marriage” was invalid from the start, hence there is no marriage to dissolve.
What happened? A ceremony that LOOKED like a wedding, or an actual union of two into one flesh? If an annulment ends up being validly granted, then that means the Tribunal determined that the wedding had only been an invalid ceremony that did not actually unite them. If there WAS an actual union, then no annulment can be validly granted.
Yes it is wrong. But if they thought they were really married to the first person, then they can’t be held responsible for it because they thought they were doing right.
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
Funny this was brought up, and I personally know of one case for annulment that was declined for insufficient evidence of there being any need for an annulment. Based on what I’ve heard, it isn’t as easy to get an annulment as it is to get a civil divorce.In Catholic circles, it’s so common for me to hear people say, “Oh, it’s so easy to get an annulment,” etc. My pastor once said that he had never heard of an annulment application being declined!
The impression that I get is that in Catholic circles today virtually all marriages can be annulled with relative ease. But only an invalid marriage can be annulled, so that would mean that either virtually all marriages are invalidor else thousands of really valid marriages are being wrongly labeled invalid by incompetent tribunals.
Does anybody else get this impression? If my analysis is correct, then all of these tribunals are heaping judgment upon themselves by carelessly telling people who are validly married that they can go and hitch up with another person – which is just licensed adultery. And this conclusion disturbs me profoundly because of the rampant evil that this system is producing – if that’s the case – because if it is, then the Tribunals must be doing so much more harm (in the way of producing so much mass adultery) than good (in the way of freeing a comparatively few people from really invalid marriages).
What do you all think of this? Am I missing something, or if I’m not, then how can this be corrected? A complete overhaul of the Tribunal system? What?
God bless you all for all you do to help me understand this!
-Dmar198
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
The head of the Tribunal in our diocese told me that a final divorce decree also protects the diocese from a lawsuit charging alienation of affections; that is that they contributed to the breakup.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think there is some kind of problem with the way it is supposed to work. A friend of mine who served on a tribunal was so shocked he had to leave the job. He said it was essentially a law model where people presented whatever evidence they thought might get the annulment granted, and the tribunal was quite aware of this.
Additionally, the Pope has said there are problems, specifically in NA, to the point that people are beginning to believe it is impossible for normal people to contract a valid marriage.
Now some will argue that this is due to bad education. I actually am a bit skeptical of this in some ways, although I also think it has some truth to it. People who marry say out loud, in front of witnesses, what exactly it is they are promising. It almost always includes promises to love each other forever, etc. And so I am a little suspicious when people say they weren’t expected to actually DO that - did they think it was just a big show? Were they lying?
I guess I think that demanding that people have perfect intent and perfect understanding is actually impossible. Even at our best, who understands everything about marriage and what it will demand of us, before we do it? And there are very few people who, in one instant, are able to give themselves wholly and completely. That may be their goal, just as it is our goal with God, but most of us hold back a little. It takes years to learn to really give up the self to another, a lifetime.
Also, in the case of defects of form: if a person made a solemn promise, it seems to me they are bound by it as a promise, whether the marriage was invalid or not. The normal procedure should be to seek a convalidation. In that case, the only reason such a person would seek annulment is the same kinds of reasons any sacramentally married person would seek it. But there seems to be an attitude that if you married civilly (for example) you can just throw it aside, since it doesn’t count.
Additionally, the Pope has said there are problems, specifically in NA, to the point that people are beginning to believe it is impossible for normal people to contract a valid marriage.
Now some will argue that this is due to bad education. I actually am a bit skeptical of this in some ways, although I also think it has some truth to it. People who marry say out loud, in front of witnesses, what exactly it is they are promising. It almost always includes promises to love each other forever, etc. And so I am a little suspicious when people say they weren’t expected to actually DO that - did they think it was just a big show? Were they lying?
I guess I think that demanding that people have perfect intent and perfect understanding is actually impossible. Even at our best, who understands everything about marriage and what it will demand of us, before we do it? And there are very few people who, in one instant, are able to give themselves wholly and completely. That may be their goal, just as it is our goal with God, but most of us hold back a little. It takes years to learn to really give up the self to another, a lifetime.
Also, in the case of defects of form: if a person made a solemn promise, it seems to me they are bound by it as a promise, whether the marriage was invalid or not. The normal procedure should be to seek a convalidation. In that case, the only reason such a person would seek annulment is the same kinds of reasons any sacramentally married person would seek it. But there seems to be an attitude that if you married civilly (for example) you can just throw it aside, since it doesn’t count.
B
Benadam
Guest
Even if one is able to know the meaning of the vow and will fulfill it’s demands doesn’t mean they married someone who is able to recieve such a vow.
D
distracted
Guest
if 2 people are married in a state court but nowhere else, no church… they are NOT married and so there is no need 4 annulment… it is just fornicaiton.
D
distracted
Guest
that is true… a civil marriage w/o church ceremony is not a marriage… just fornication
also: about that graphic @ the bottom of your posts…
seems the wording is not the best…
almost developed??
a fertilized egg is complete… and so it is developed… a totally complete human being who only needs time & nutrition to be fully viable… (whatever that word even means… In a very real sense none of is totally “viable” … no matter what our age…
i don’t like the wroding because some abortion proponents would use it as an excuse to say: well, you admit, the child is not fully developed… therefore not fully human like you and i … so its ok to abort up to a certain age…
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
You seem to be confused on this point. An “annulment” doesn’t change a valid marriage into an invalid marriage. An annulment is an investigation into a putative marriage to see if it is already valid or not. If 2 people are married in a state court, and the marriage is invalid, then they still need an annulment to declare that the marriage is invalid.
And this is a different point anyway. If two people are married in the Catholic Church, they still need a final divorce decree from the state court before the Catholic tribunal will accept their annulment application.
D
distracted
Guest
how am i confused when i know this (the following)? Oh that’s right, you don’t know what all i know or don’t know… but you assume what i know just the same… hmmm… that’s odd…
sorry, i just get tired of posters calling other posters “confused”… gets tiresome…
i never disagreed with that.
except for this one thing: If 2 people are married in a state court, and the marriage is invalid
there is never a time when 2 are married in state court (only) and it is valid… If they are not married in front of God (in a church) they are NOT married…
seems i am not the one confused…
sorry, i just get tired of posters calling other posters “confused”… gets tiresome…
so what is your point?
i never disagreed with that.
except for this one thing: If 2 people are married in a state court, and the marriage is invalid
there is never a time when 2 are married in state court (only) and it is valid… If they are not married in front of God (in a church) they are NOT married…
seems i am not the one confused…
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
You wrote:
This is incorrect. There is still a need for annulment in that case.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
If two Lutherans get married in a state court, and it is the first marriage for each of them, then the Catholic Church considers that a valid marriage.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Right!!! I tell people that if they ever stood in front of anyone with any authority - clergy, judge, ship captain - wit a person of the opposite sex and said anything resembling I DO, they need to submit it to the Tribunal. I won’t give you my whole list of sad cases who listened to someone who told them they didn’t need a decree of nullity and then found they did a few days before the planned wedding. We don’t have a fast track for these cases. [Or maybe everyone is a special case; so we have them all on the fast track.
]
S
Sheeniac
Guest
We say confused because it is more charitable than telling someone they are wrong.
All marriages are assumed to be valid. 2 non-denominational Christians who marry in court, then later divorce, are assumed to have been validly married.
This is very basic ‘annulment 101’ information. We went to an all day intro annulment seminar presented by the canon lawyer in charge of annulments/on the Tribunal at the Diocese of Joliet.
There are many areas of serious confusions and misunderstandings - this point is not one of them.
J
JacktheCatholic
Guest
Whether it is 0% of annulments granted or 100% of annulments granted makes no difference because they all happened because God allows it.In Catholic circles, it’s so common for me to hear people say, “Oh, it’s so easy to get an annulment,” etc. My pastor once said that he had never heard of an annulment application being declined!
The impression that I get is that in Catholic circles today virtually all marriages can be annulled with relative ease. But only an invalid marriage can be annulled, so that would mean that either virtually all marriages are invalid
Does anybody else get this impression? If my analysis is correct, then all of these tribunals are heaping judgment upon themselves by carelessly telling people who are validly married that they can go and hitch up with another person – which is just licensed adultery. And this conclusion disturbs me profoundly because of the rampant evil that this system is producing – if that’s the case – because if it is, then the Tribunals must be doing so much more harm (in the way of producing so much mass adultery) than good (in the way of freeing a comparatively few people from really invalid marriages).
What do you all think of this? Am I missing something, or if I’m not, then how can this be corrected? A complete overhaul of the Tribunal system? What?
God bless you all for all you do to help me understand this!
-Dmar198
I am always reminded that Jesus told Pontius that he has only the power that God gives him and no more. So it is with everything. Especially the Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ. So who are we to question God?
D
distracted
Guest
no it doesn’t
D
distracted
Guest
i never disagreed w/ that either…
but once the tribunal gets the facts it rules that it was invalid because it wasn’t in a church… by a minister…
it is conceivable that a minister was there in the court during the marriage… THAT may tend to validate the marriage… but not otherwise…
B
Benadam
Guest
distracted, ministers can only be ministers of their own marriage. Just like you or me, we are the only ones who can recieve, or not, the other, or give ourselves to, or not, the other, we, ourslves are the ministers of marriage, we minister ourselves to the bonds of matrimony that order our lives to a state of unity that makes visible and in a certain way is, humanity as a whole.
The Church gives a marriage it’s blessing and that grants the grace for the couple to live up to the demands of sacramental life. A valid marriage blessed by the Church is Sacramental but if it’s not valid married life then it isn’t life that can recieve and be lifted up into the Sacramental life the Church has blessed upon it. Also, It’s not out of God’s box to Bless any marriage He chooses. Even one that has no one but Himself as witness.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
You disagreed that if two Lutherans were married in a court that it would be valid. You disagreed with me. Can you state WHY you hold the opinion you do rather than just state your opinion?
What you say is going against what I was told in the day long diocesan workshop.
I am getting an annulment due to lack of form. I had left the Church and married civilly. My paperwork is one page consisting of documents and witness statements.
If what you say is true, then the Lutherans or atheists would only need to fill out the paperwork for a lack of form, not the full blown paperwork. And this is not the case.
Unless you can back up your statement with some proof or fact, I think that you should cease making this statement.
Or, perhaps we should ‘ask an apologist’ to get a definitive answer.
- Status