Annulments should be way more difficult

[Bluegoat]

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…

Actually, a civil marriage without a Church ceremony is not neccesarily an invalid marriage. An annulment tribunal may well rule that between two non-catholics, it is a perfectly valid natural marriage. And normally even if they didn’t it would not be considered “fornication”. Sin always depends on our intend and understanding of the nature of the sin - as Paul says, sin comes through the Law.

As for wording in the little graphic, which changes regularly. Indeed an unborn child is not fully developed. If it were born now, it would die since it is not ready to live outside the womb. A child of 5 isn’t fully developed either. Those are perfectly normal and understandable ways for those words to be used. Perhaps you might suggest another though. “The babies lungs are not yet functioning entirely?” “Ready to be in the outside world” Any language you use will be implying the same thing - things are changing and developing.

 

[manualman]

We beat this topic regularly here. Short version, I once felt like you do.

I’ve since changed my mind 180 degrees. I think the vast majority of annullments are based on valid reasons. The problem is that we grant “apparently” catholic WEDDINGS far too easily today. Interviews should address all the common “impediments” seen BEFORE people get married. Where impediments are found, the couple should be advised that they cannot receive the sacrament of matrimony unless the impediment is resolved.

Unfortunately, this requires a lot of courage and diplomacy to pull off. I doubt it’ll happen. The scandal will just go on.

How do catholics spell divorce? “A N U L L M E N T”

 

[Joe_Kelley]

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 encounter similar cases with people coming into the Church through RCIA. If neither party was Catholic, or Orthodox, then any previous marriage is assumed to be valid and there is no convalidation. If they were not previously baptized the previous marriage was a natural marriage and becomes sacramental as soon as both are baptized.

Note that if one or both parties are Orthodox, their marriage is considered valid only if it was in the form specified by their Orthodox Church.

 

[Secret_Square]

I used to work for a diocesan newspaper and attended several seminars explaining the annulment process, so here’s my understanding regarding marriages between non-Catholics:

Any marriage between two non-Catholics that were free to marry (never married, or no previous spouses living) at the time of the wedding IS recognized by the Catholic Church because people who are not Catholic are not bound by our “canonical form” of marriage.

The canonical form of marriage (being married before a priest or deacon and 2 witnesses) is not a matter of divine law or universal moral law which applies to everyone, but a matter of Church discipline which applies only to Catholics and which the Church can change if She wishes.

The Church did not insist that a marriage had to take place before a priest to be valid until the Middle Ages, and even then, that requirement wasn’t enforced in “mission” countries where priests were few and far between. Remember, in Catholic teaching the sacrament is actually *administered *by the bride and groom themselves, with the priest/deacon serving as a witness.

However, the Catholic Church does NOT automatically recognize marriages between non-Catholics when one or both are divorced and their previous spouses are still living, even if the couple’s religion does allow divorced persons to remarry. The reasoning here is that the indissolubility and permanence of marriage are matters of divine law proclaimed by Christ Himself and therefore binding on everyone.

If a divorced non-Catholic wishes to marry a Catholic and/or join the Church, and it turns out that his or her previous marriage was to a divorced person whose ex was still alive at the time, he or she will usually receive an annulment on the grounds that a “ligamen” or prior bond existed between the ex and his/her original spouse, which invalidated the subsequent marriage.

 

[Ailina]

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 or 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

If you have ever gone through the annulment process, you would not be saying it is easy to get. Most divorced Catholics I know will** not **even bother trying to get an annulment at all because the procedure is so gruelling and heart-wrenching, on top of the heart wrenching procedure of divorce.

It’s like one huge confession of all the smallest details of your marriage. And oh joy, you have to find witnesses that may have noticed something wasn’t quite right. Of course, because marriage problems are usually private and kept between husband and wife, it can be really hard to prove that there might have been any kind of problem in the marriage from the start. And let’s not forget the spouses who keep trying to overcome major issues for years and years only to be abandoned. And nobody knows why because you are supposed to be loyal and faithful to your spouse and so you don’t say a peep to anyone all those years. Try proving there was an impediment then. Very hard, especially for long term marriages.

Frankly, going through the annulment process is truly humiliating. MOST Catholics don’t even venture there, but would rather switch churches. So NO, I disagree. Most Catholics going for annulments have plenty of evidence to prove that something was wrong with the marriage from the start. Those who don’t have proof don’t bother trying.

 

[Sheeniac]

True Ailina - I have a friend who married in the Lutheran Church because she and her husband (now ex-husband) had issues with the process. The divorce is recent, but I had planned to mention that she got married without permission, outside of the Church. Hence, she could apply for an annulment based on lack of form. But, it’s still too recent…

 

[Just_Lurking]

If you have ever gone through the annulment process, you would not be saying it is easy to get. Most divorced Catholics I know will** not **even bother trying to get an annulment at all because the procedure is so gruelling and heart-wrenching, on top of the heart wrenching procedure of divorce.

It’s like one huge confession of all the smallest details of your marriage. And oh joy, you have to find witnesses that may have noticed something wasn’t quite right. Of course, because marriage problems are usually private and kept between husband and wife, it can be really hard to prove that there might have been any kind of problem in the marriage from the start. And let’s not forget the spouses who keep trying to overcome major issues for years and years only to be abandoned. And nobody knows why because you are supposed to be loyal and faithful to your spouse and so you don’t say a peep to anyone all those years. Try proving there was an impediment then. Very hard, especially for long term marriages.

Frankly, going through the annulment process is truly humiliating. MOST Catholics don’t even venture there, but would rather switch churches. So NO, I disagree. Most Catholics going for annulments have plenty of evidence to prove that something was wrong with the marriage from the start. Those who don’t have proof don’t bother trying.

Amen to this! And it goes double for divorced Protestants who are getting an annulment in order to marry a Catholic.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Baloney.

Using your logic, only Catholic marriages are sacramental and therefor any sex that goes on in a non-Catholic marriage is fornication. This is obviously not so. There are “churches” are led by a minister who got his or her ordination certificate online. Are you suggesting that marriages performed by such “clergy” are somehow more legitimate than a civil service just because the minister holds a certificate?

In your example, it’s not a ***sacramental ***marriage, but it’s a marriage nonetheless.

 

[kage_ar]

And oh joy, you have to find witnesses that may have noticed something wasn’t quite right. Of course, because marriage problems are usually private and kept between husband and wife,

Having served as a witness in a nullity investigation, one has to provide witnesses who knew you in the time up before and on the day of your wedding. Best for this are your girlfriends, your buddies, the people you chose to be part of your wedding party. Pretty much everyone has a best friend, especially before marriage, that person is your witness.

 

[Secret_Square]

Also, when people talk about “not needing an annulment” of a previous marriage, what they may mean is that a FORMAL annulment process requiring witness testimony, psychological examinations, etc. isn’t required. In any case where there is a previous marriage, however, at least an INFORMAL process is required to verify the facts involved.

Most informal annulment cases involve Catholics whose previous marriage took place outside the church. In such a case, all the person has to do is supply to their pastor or to their diocesan Tribunal office copies of their baptismal certificate (to prove they are Catholic), their marriage license or certificate (to prove when and where the marriage took place), and their divorce decree (to prove the marriage has ended).

If the diocese in which the marriage took place has no record of a dispensation ever having been granted for said wedding, the person will automatically be granted an annulment due to “lack of form”. The process does not take very long and no testimony is required, but it still has to be done.

The bottom line is that ANY Catholic who has been divorced or who is marrying a divorced person of ANY religious faith, needs an annulment in order to marry again in the church. How long or complicated the process is, however, depends on the situation.

Also, a previous poster noted that most testimony in annulment cases focuses on the couple’s situation BEFORE the wedding, not years later. You see, an annulment is based on grounds that existed at the time of the wedding that would have made the consent of one or both partners defective or invalid.

For example, if the groom boasted to some of his buddies at the bachelor party that he had no intention of giving up his “bachelor” ways completely, or if the bride told one of her prospective bridesmaids that she really didn’t want to have any children, or if either one of them said something to the effect of “Well, if it doesn’t work out, we can always get a divorce” – that would be the kind of testimony a tribunal would be looking for. Any difficulties that the couple had AFTER they married would not be as relevant.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t know - but there seems something very wrong about the idea that a person can knowingly go against the Church and marry in another church or civil ceremony, and then be eligible for an annulment because of his or her lack of obedience. Even if they did it with full knowledge.

I can see the logic, but if I were in charge of the universe, I wouldn’t be inclined to marry the person again.

I also wonder a bit about the idea that the CC should demand more of people before it allows them to marry, and even start refusing people. At some point, it still comes down to the individual, inside himself, taking on the responsibility for his decision. If he has had the significance of the sacrament explained, taken a marriage prep course, and not really listened to it, but assures the priest that he has - well, what is the priest supposed to do exactly? It makes me think of that phrase you see in legal situations “ought to have known or reasonably to have known”. If a person goes through all of that preparation and still doesn’t get it, maybe there is some real mental impediment for a remarriage in that case too.

And then there seem to be a lot of situations where priests are encouraged to be lenient because they don’t want to force people to go and marry outside of the Church. I suppose it doesn’t make much difference - if the case is suspect and the priest marries them anyway, then they can get an annulment based on defect of intent. If he refuses, they get married somewhere else and get an easier annulment based on defect of form. So I have no idea what would be a better answer.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I don’t know - but there seems something very wrong about the idea that a person can knowingly go against the Church and marry in another church or civil ceremony, and then be eligible for an annulment because of his or her lack of obedience. Even if they did it with full knowledge.

I can see the logic, but if I were in charge of the universe, I wouldn’t be inclined to marry the person again.

I also wonder a bit about the idea that the CC should demand more of people before it allows them to marry, and even start refusing people. At some point, it still comes down to the individual, inside himself, taking on the responsibility for his decision. If he has had the significance of the sacrament explained, taken a marriage prep course, and not really listened to it, but assures the priest that he has - well, what is the priest supposed to do exactly? It makes me think of that phrase you see in legal situations “ought to have known or reasonably to have known”. If a person goes through all of that preparation and still doesn’t get it, maybe there is some real mental impediment for a remarriage in that case too.

And then there seem to be a lot of situations where priests are encouraged to be lenient because they don’t want to force people to go and marry outside of the Church. I suppose it doesn’t make much difference - if the case is suspect and the priest marries them anyway, then they can get an annulment based on defect of intent. If he refuses, they get married somewhere else and get an easier annulment based on defect of form. So I have no idea what would be a better answer.

If a priest marries them anyways then he is breaking his vow of obedience.

There is alot of disobedience in the Catholic Church it seems.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Before becoming Catholic I was a Pagan (never baptized) and was married by a retired judge to a non practicing Baptist who later refused marriage counseling to persue her “Free Spirit” vocation.

Later, I met and was dating a non practicing Catholic and we decided to marry and since I had already went through a divorce I figured it would be simple.

I ended out going through RCIA and then baptism and confirmation. Also had to do an annulment that was detailed and required written statements from my ex and witnesses on both sides of the family. When it was finally decided that an annulment should be granted though I still needed to have counseling to make sure me and my wife were in a proper relationship for marriage. That made me furious. I was so sternly against the Catholic Church as a power hungry corporation that I refused and got verbally upset with the lady handling our case. So it was left hanging idle for years.

It took me 6 years before I realized my error. I was so ignorant to God and His ways and even today I am still learning. But when all this was happening I was blind. When my eyes finally opened I saw my foolishness and my wife and I had the required counseling and then we had the church bless and approve our marriage. You see, when I was foolishly upset we had a excommunicated and married priest( formerly RCC) marry us. We lived that way for maybe 6 years before I realized the truth.

So, I can see now and so much more clearly. I know the Catholic Church needs to go through these Annulment processes for our sake. It is sad that so many Catholics have excommunicated themselves to avoid an annulment and have an easy remarriage at a Protestant church. But I also know what it is like to live in their blindness.

I would only add that both my wife and I noticed increased blessings immediately after we had our marriage blessed by the Catholic Church. Our family has been better for it ever since and where we once struggle to keep the marriage going we now have a firm union that we have tested through tough times and no sign of crumbling but rather growing in strength and conviction. God has blessed us so much since…

 

[StillWondering]

I would add that the sexual revolution really did a number of the preparation of individuals to be married. Yeah one may take classes or go to consoling before marriage, but if you have ingrained ideas that are incompatible with the Church teachings on marriage from societal learning and do not know about it, it is very easy to have an invalid marriage.

On top of this, I actually do not hear the same thing about annulments in my daily life as you have mentioned in your parish.

 

[StillWondering]

Before becoming Catholic I was a Pagan (never baptized) and was married by a retired judge to a non practicing Baptist who later refused marriage counseling to persue her “Free Spirit” vocation.

Later, I met and was dating a non practicing Catholic and we decided to marry and since I had already went through a divorce I figured it would be simple.

I ended out going through RCIA and then baptism and confirmation. Also had to do an annulment that was detailed and required written statements from my ex and witnesses on both sides of the family. When it was finally decided that an annulment should be granted though I still needed to have counseling to make sure me and my wife were in a proper relationship for marriage. That made me furious. I was so sternly against the Catholic Church as a power hungry corporation that I refused and got verbally upset with the lady handling our case. So it was left hanging idle for years.

It took me 6 years before I realized my error. I was so ignorant to God and His ways and even today I am still learning. But when all this was happening I was blind. When my eyes finally opened I saw my foolishness and my wife and I had the required counseling and then we had the church bless and approve our marriage. You see, when I was foolishly upset we had a excommunicated and married priest( formerly RCC) marry us. We lived that way for maybe 6 years before I realized the truth.

So, I can see now and so much more clearly. I know the Catholic Church needs to go through these Annulment processes for our sake. It is sad that so many Catholics have excommunicated themselves to avoid an annulment and have an easy remarriage at a Protestant church. But I also know what it is like to live in their blindness.

I would only add that both my wife and I noticed increased blessings immediately after we had our marriage blessed by the Catholic Church. Our family has been better for it ever since and where we once struggle to keep the marriage going we now have a firm union that we have tested through tough times and no sign of crumbling but rather growing in strength and conviction. God has blessed us so much since…

What a wonderful story. Thank you for sharing it. It will help inspire my journey.

 

[Sheeniac]

I don’t know - but there seems something very wrong about the idea that a person can knowingly go against the Church and marry in another church or civil ceremony, and then be eligible for an annulment because of his or her lack of obedience. Even if they did it with full knowledge.

At first blush, your point is well taken. In my case, I had stopped attending Church and decided that God no longer existed. However, I had gone through all but confirmation as a youth, and the Church still considered me a Catholic… disobedient, lapsed and prodigal, but a Catholic nonetheless.

I think that in MANY cases the situation is similar - the Catholic doesn’t believe that the Church really does or should have such authority (as mentioned by the former pagan above) to make judgments about one’s divorce and marriage. It’s “between me and God” is frequently thought. I would say my friend who married outside the Church feels that way.

Given such thinking, it really is a disordered state (IMO) so a lack of form annulment isn’t necessarily a ‘get out of jail free’ card. I’d have applied for a regular annulment if lackof form didn’t exist.

 

[Sheeniac]

Also, when people talk about “not needing an annulment” of a previous marriage, what they may mean is that a FORMAL annulment process requiring witness testimony, psychological examinations, etc. isn’t required. In any case where there is a previous marriage, however, at least an INFORMAL process is required to verify the facts involved.

If the diocese in which the marriage took place has no record of a dispensation ever having been granted for said wedding, the person will automatically be granted an annulment due to “lack of form”. The process does not take very long and no testimony is required, but it still has to be done.

I’d be careful using the words formal vs informal. There’s also the case of people using the ‘internal forum’ (I think that’s the phrase) in which they decide using their own conscience that everything is ok and they can receive the sacraments anyway. ‘Informal’ could cause confusion.

I would also suggest that calling it ‘informal’ id not quite accurate. I have a diocesan document to fill out and I need two witnesses to testify that I did not later marry in the Catholic Church. It’s certainly a less formal procedure, but still a procedure nonetheless.

I think of it as ‘the short form’ because annulments and audits really rank pretty similar, I think.

 

[Spirithound]

I don’t know - but there seems something very wrong about the idea that a person can knowingly go against the Church and marry in another church or civil ceremony, and then be eligible for an annulment because of his or her lack of obedience. Even if they did it with full knowledge.

Well my friend, this is forgiveness

I also wonder a bit about the idea that the CC should demand more of people before it allows them to marry, and even start refusing people. At some point, it still comes down to the individual, inside himself, taking on the responsibility for his decision. If he has had the significance of the sacrament explained, taken a marriage prep course, and not really listened to it, but assures the priest that he has - well, what is the priest supposed to do exactly? It makes me think of that phrase you see in legal situations “ought to have known or reasonably to have known”. If a person goes through all of that preparation and still doesn’t get it, maybe there is some real mental impediment for a remarriage in that case too.

Perhaps this thread is tangential-to-topic
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=293306

 

[Just_Lurking]

The three levels of annulments are: (1) formal case, (2) documentary case, and (3) lack of form investigation.

 

[otjm]

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.

That is not necessarily true.

If either of the parties were Catholic, then they must follow Catholic form, which for those in the US is that they must have the wedding ceremony witnessed (officially) by a priest.

However, if you have two non-Catholic parties, the Church recognizes their marriage; it may recognize it as sacramental marriage if both parties are baptized, or a natural marriage if one or both are not baptized. And in both cases, if the parties divorced and one of them wanted to marry a Catholic, they would have to have the first marriage reviewed by a tribunal and a decree of nullity granted before they would be considered to be free to marry.