Annulments/support group

[AnchoredInHope]

As another question, I had heard the after December 8th, there was going to be a more streamlined process and more “merciful”, but nobody seems to know anything about what that actually entails. Does anyone know??

 

[kristis524]

I started the annulment in Jan 2015 and just learned on Dec 28th, that my tribunal (San Antonio) is awaiting the Defender of the Bond’s breif, before theyll be making their decision. Im so anxious and excited to get this behind me; Its been a long time coming :dancing:! My only question is, with the discontinuation of the 2nd court appeal, being a month ago and still no decision on the 1st court level, im wondering if ill still have to have my hopefully affirmative decision, appealed by the second court? Im not sure if its only cases that were submited after the Dec 8th changes, that will be able to take advantage of the new, shorter process, sans 2nd court.
Being that the 2nd court ratification is only neccessary for affirmative decisions and every marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise, im not sure why, at this pont-one month post change, that our case would get “grandfathered” into the old process.
Has anyone had experience with the San Antonio Tribunal? They’ve been most helpful in the process!

It is my understanding that any decision made after December 8th will not need the 2nd court ratification. There is no “grandfather” into the old process. I am from the Galveston-Houston Archdiocese, not San Antonio, but I was told that by my advocate and I would assume it would apply to all cases, not specifically to my archdiocese.

 

[dans0622]

It is my understanding that any decision made after December 8th will not need the 2nd court ratification. There is no “grandfather” into the old process. I am from the Galveston-Houston Archdiocese, not San Antonio, but I was told that by my advocate and I would assume it would apply to all cases, not specifically to my archdiocese.

Right. It depends on when the Sentence is signed. If it is signed on or after Dec. 8, there is no “automatic appeal.” This applies everywhere for all marriage nullity cases.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

As another question, I had heard the after December 8th, there was going to be a more streamlined process and more “merciful”, but nobody seems to know anything about what that actually entails. Does anyone know??

Hello,

There is indeed a … I’ll call it a “secondary” process … that is supposed to be shorter than what is called the “ordinary” process. I don’t know how “mercy” enters into the question. Either the local Bishop thinks the shorter, secondary process is applicable or he doesn’t.

I know what it entails…don’t know how much detail you would like. Fundamentally, it is a process that can be used when both Parties to the marriage agree to process being used and it is somehow “evident” at the outset that the marriage is invalid. This “evident” quality would come from the initial testimony of the Petitioner (and perhaps Respondent) as well as documentation. After that testimony has been submitted and the shorter process is employed, all the rest of the evidence is to be obtained within a period of about a month and then the case proceeds to a Sentence which is issued by the Bishop himself.

Dan

 

[AnchoredInHope]

Hello,

There is indeed a … I’ll call it a “secondary” process … that is supposed to be shorter than what is called the “ordinary” process. I don’t know how “mercy” enters into the question. Either the local Bishop thinks the shorter, secondary process is applicable or he doesn’t.

I know what it entails…don’t know how much detail you would like. Fundamentally, it is a process that can be used when both Parties to the marriage agree to process being used and it is somehow “evident” at the outset that the marriage is invalid. This “evident” quality would come from the initial testimony of the Petitioner (and perhaps Respondent) as well as documentation. After that testimony has been submitted and the shorter process is employed, all the rest of the evidence is to be obtained within a period of about a month and then the case proceeds to a Sentence which is issued by the Bishop himself.

Dan

Thank you for clarification. That’s too bad for me because I know my ex will not even open the envelope from Diocese as he has ignored any communication from me. Which is too bad, because he isn’t Catholic, has moved on and never wanted children with me/intended permanence. Looks like I am in for the long haul

 

[dans0622]

Thank you for clarification. That’s too bad for me because I know my ex will not even open the envelope from Diocese as he has ignored any communication from me. Which is too bad, because he isn’t Catholic, has moved on and never wanted children with me/intended permanence. Looks like I am in for the long haul ������

Well, “the long haul” doesn’t have to be that long. The ordinary process can be completed in six months, easily. Of course, I do live in the real world and know that even if the process *can *finish in a matter of less than six months, that doesn’t usually happen. It does, though, from time to time.

Dan

 

[AnchoredInHope]

Well, “the long haul” doesn’t have to be that long. The ordinary process can be completed in six months, easily. Of course, I do live in the real world and know that even if the process *can *finish in a matter of less than six months, that doesn’t usually happen. It does, though, from time to time.

Dan

Oh well in light of this response I feel encouraged. I understand you wouldn’t know specifics to my case but I find 6 months to be very reasonable. I think I was under mistaken assumption that the average (meaning less complicated situations) was more like 12-18 months across the board. So again, thank you for your post. It truly helped.

 

[dans0622]

Oh well in light of this response I feel encouraged. I understand you wouldn’t know specifics to my case but I find 6 months to be very reasonable. I think I was under mistaken assumption that the average (meaning less complicated situations) was more like 12-18 months across the board. So again, thank you for your post. It truly helped.

I am quite sure you will be told by the tribunal to expect the process to take about a year. That’s a safe, “ballpark” figure. Certainly, managing expectations is important, both for you and the tribunal.

Dan

 

[Guineviere]

Me again, still waiting on my fiancé’s judgment.

Our tribunal advertises 12 months average…17 months later and the case has been awaiting the judge for 7 months. There were no issues or delays getting everything submitted. They tell us it’s close to the top of the stack. They can’t tell us if it will need a second judgement or not.

 

[AnchoredInHope]

I am thankful to have found this forum.

I am not Catholic, but planning to start RCIA in the fall. I am recently engaged to a wonderful Catholic man I have known for over 30 years. I submitted my forms for annulment in March, my witnesses statements were completed in May, and now I am waiting for publication of the acts.

I have been married twice. In going through this process I have found that my understanding of marriage was wrong. (Protestant background, Family with multiple divorces and marriages.) I am thankful for the healing and the understanding that this process brings about, but I’m frustrated that this process takes so long. As someone who wants to join the Catholic faith, it seems like a shorter process would be more welcoming, but I understand that it is very serious work that is taking place.

Any advice on how I can get through this process with grace and come out on the other side? Right now it feels like there is no other side.

Thank you all for your support.

I empathize with this post so much and would love to know more peoples thoughts on the OP’s question. I am in RCIA and I have learned upon much time and self-reflection that my past understanding of marriage was wrong due to several factors of my background. And I understand WHY we need to do this process, but I struggle with how intimidating it is as someone who wants to join the faith.

I am truly most afraid of never being able to receive Eucharist because of my bad choices/situations I made/was put in before I ever had a true understanding and before I ever was a Christian…especially when this sacrament is such a central part of the faith. I am just terrified of being shut out from it forever.

 

[weaverbird]

Why do people need to go through the annulment process, to join RCIA?

 

[dans0622]

Me again, still waiting on my fiancé’s judgment.

Our tribunal advertises 12 months average…17 months later and the case has been awaiting the judge for 7 months. There were no issues or delays getting everything submitted. They tell us it’s close to the top of the stack. They can’t tell us if it will need a second judgement or not.

Such a delay is against procedural law but…what can you do? Not much of anything. As for a second judgment–there is the possibility of an appeal by a Party or the Defender of the Bond but there will not be an “automatic appeal.”

Dan

 

[Peebo]

Why do people need to go through the annulment process, to join RCIA?

RCIA is for those wanting to join the Catholic Church…if they have been married and divorced they have to get an annulment before becoming Catholic…this is the situation with my wife…she went through RCIA in 2014…she is waiting for the final execution of her annulment within the next few weeks…if they are married they could still go through RCIA and become Catholic…their spouse need not be Catholic…same as if they were not married…they go through RCIA and become Catholic.

 

[AnchoredInHope]

Why do people need to go through the annulment process, to join RCIA?

I was divorced and civilly remarried long before I found Catholicism. I won’t be able to receive Holy Communion until it is determined that my first marriage wasn’t valid, or another way to say it was missing an essential element to be considered a marriage to the Church from the beginning.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I was divorced and civilly remarried long before I found Catholicism. I won’t be able to receive Holy Communion until it is determined that my first marriage wasn’t valid, or another way to say it was missing an essential element to be considered a marriage to the Church from the beginning.

Curious.
I know of some married couples who had to stop having sexual relations, and go to confession before receiving communion. For as long as they were celebate, living as brother and sister, I understood they could receive communion.

Where is the rule written that those who have a civil re-marriage can not become Catholic without an annulment? I have never heard of this.

I was married in the Catholic church, but my putative wife began to claim that we were not validly married several years after the marriage; eg: My mother in law talked to my parish priest and claimed he condemned the marriage. This led to a situation where I didn’t know if I was sinning or not in having sexual relations with my wife. My conscience and hers were clearly different.

But, even though I don’t have an annulment yet – I still received communion before the divorce was complete. No one, even the parish priest that was involved in breaking up the marriage, claimed that I was doing wrong because I was in what he judged was an invalid marriage.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Curious.
I know of some married couples who had to stop having sexual relations, and go to confession before receiving communion. For as long as they were celebate, living as brother and sister, I understood they could receive communion.

Where is the rule written that those who have a civil re-marriage can not become Catholic without an annulment? I have never heard of this.

I was married in the Catholic church, but my putative wife began to claim that we were not validly married several years after the marriage; eg: My mother in law talked to my parish priest and claimed he condemned the marriage. This led to a situation where I didn’t know if I was sinning or not in having sexual relations with my wife. My conscience and hers were clearly different.

But, even though I don’t have an annulment yet – I still received communion before the divorce was complete. No one, even the parish priest that was involved in breaking up the marriage, claimed that I was doing wrong because I was in what he judged was an invalid marriage.

For a confession to be valid, there must be a firm desire NOT to sin again. What you’re describing these couples as doing is inappropriate and their confessions will be invalid.

If you’ve had a civil remarriage, you must be granted a declaration of nullity because otherwise you will be living in a state of adultery. Your first marriage is presumed valid. You will not be able to receive Communion until this has been straightened out. As a Catholic, a person is pledging to become new in Christ. You can’t go into it intending to stay the same as you were before - i.e. continuing in your sin.

As far as your putative wife goes - EVERY marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise, unless it can be demonstrated “on paper” that the marriage was invalid (e.g. lack of or defect of canonical form, being already married, being too closely related). Your marriage is ONLY invalid if one of these conditions exists OR if it has been declared invalid by a marriage tribunal.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

For a confession to be valid, there must be a firm desire NOT to sin again. What you’re describing these couples as doing is inappropriate and their confessions will be invalid.

You’re saying that people who are in a civil marriage, and who stop having sexual relations when it is brought to their attention that they marriage is illicit, are sinning by stopping having sexual relations???!

I think you’re crazy.

The very fact that they start to abstain while waiting for an annulment is evidence that they in fact have a firm desire not to sin.

If you’ve had a civil remarriage, you must be granted a declaration of nullity because otherwise you will be living in a state of adultery.

Adultery requires sexual activity.

Your first marriage is presumed valid. You will not be able to receive Communion until this has been straightened out. As a Catholic, a person is pledging to become new in Christ. You can’t go into it intending to stay the same as you were before - i.e. continuing in your sin.

Considering you can’t prove sin, I suggest you stop while you’re still ahead.

As far as your putative wife goes - EVERY marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise, unless it can be demonstrated “on paper” that the marriage was invalid (e.g. lack of or defect of canonical form, being already married, being too closely related). Your marriage is ONLY invalid if one of these conditions exists OR if it has been declared invalid by a marriage tribunal.

In theory, perhaps. But I doubt that’s really true in practice.
Only marriages which can be documented on paper, or by witnesses will be considered at all. Undocumented marriages will be ignored.

Besides, the Catholic church formally declared in an ecumenical council that they can declare conditions at a later date which invalidate a marriage even after it has been consummated. These new impediments can dissolve a marriage.

So, the Catholic church does effectively reserve the right to have priests acting in persona Christi break up a marriage which was valid on the day it was consummated according to the law that existed on the day of marriage.

Also: Please note, when Jesus makes his declarations concerning marriage he never says that God can not separate what man has joined; only that man can not separate what God has joined.

Again: Jesus was clearly NOT speaking directly to Catholics, or people even capable of sacraments, when he made his declaration; He was speaking PRIMARILY to Jews, and indirectly to the whole world. Also note: Adam and Eve could not have HAD a sacrament in the sense of the Catholic marriage. Rather Jesus was speaking to Jewish rabbis on a question of the law of Moses, and whether or not a man can divorce for “any reason at all.” Therefore, Jesus words apply to all marriages both inside and outside the church.

Therefore: When Paul says an believer is not bound in marriage by an unbeliever who divorces them; he is clearly acting in persona Christi as a priest to dissolve a marriage bond which can be every bit as valid as Adam and Eve’s. Adam and Eve’s marriage persisted even in the face of unbelief and (gasp) mortal sin.

 

[Peebo]

Curious.
I know of some married couples who had to stop having sexual relations, and go to confession before receiving communion. For as long as they were celebate, living as brother and sister, I understood they could receive communion.

Where is the rule written that those who have a civil re-marriage can not become Catholic without an annulment? I have never heard of this.

I was married in the Catholic church, but my putative wife began to claim that we were not validly married several years after the marriage; eg: My mother in law talked to my parish priest and claimed he condemned the marriage. This led to a situation where I didn’t know if I was sinning or not in having sexual relations with my wife. My conscience and hers were clearly different.

But, even though I don’t have an annulment yet – I still received communion before the divorce was complete. No one, even the parish priest that was involved in breaking up the marriage, claimed that I was doing wrong because I was in what he judged was an invalid marriage.

My wife is in the final process of becoming Catholic…she was divorced…we were both in a civil re-marriage…she HAD to get an annulment before becoming a Catholic…no question

 

[His_helpmeet]

You’re saying that people who are in a civil marriage, and who stop having sexual relations when it is brought to their attention that they marriage is illicit, are sinning by stopping having sexual relations???!

I think you’re crazy.

The very fact that they start to abstain while waiting for an annulment is evidence that they in fact have a firm desire not to sin.

Adultery requires sexual activity.

Considering you can’t prove sin, I suggest you stop while you’re still ahead.

In theory, perhaps. But I doubt that’s really true in practice.
Only marriages which can be documented on paper, or by witnesses will be considered at all. Undocumented marriages will be ignored.

Besides, the Catholic church formally declared in an ecumenical council that they can declare conditions at a later date which invalidate a marriage even after it has been consummated. These new impediments can dissolve a marriage.

So, the Catholic church does effectively reserve the right to have priests acting in persona Christi break up a marriage which was valid on the day it was consummated according to the law that existed on the day of marriage.

Also: Please note, when Jesus makes his declarations concerning marriage he never says that God can not separate what man has joined; only that man can not separate what God has joined.

Again: Jesus was clearly NOT speaking directly to Catholics, or people even capable of sacraments, when he made his declaration; He was speaking PRIMARILY to Jews, and indirectly to the whole world. Also note: Adam and Eve could not have HAD a sacrament in the sense of the Catholic marriage. Rather Jesus was speaking to Jewish rabbis on a question of the law of Moses, and whether or not a man can divorce for “any reason at all.” Therefore, Jesus words apply to all marriages both inside and outside the church.

Therefore: When Paul says an believer is not bound in marriage by an unbeliever who divorces them; he is clearly acting in persona Christi as a priest to dissolve a marriage bond which can be every bit as valid as Adam and Eve’s. Adam and Eve’s marriage persisted even in the face of unbelief and (gasp) mortal sin.

I apologize. I misunderstood the context. What I thought the PP was saying was that the couple figured they could just go on sleeping together, going to Confession every so often before they went to Communion. Looking back, I realize I was mistaken. You’re quite correct - if a couple agrees to live celibate lives and go to Confession, they absolutely may go to Holy Communion.

As far as the other point - what you’re describing is something called the Pauline Privilege. The Church does recognize this as an option in some cases where a second marriage is desired. However, it cannot be granted in EVERY case. Sometimes circumstances peculiar to the case result in a formal nullity trial being required.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

My wife is in the final process of becoming Catholic…she was divorced…we were both in a civil re-marriage…she HAD to get an annulment before becoming a Catholic…no question

I don’t disbelieve you Peebo.

In my own archdiocese, there have been many instances of irregular advice by well intentioned priests leading to people doing things which are not officially sanctioned by the church. It would not be surprising to me if I have witnessed things here which don’t happen in your diocese. Case in point, the annulment trial I am going through is following a procedure that is deviating from what was spelled out in the Vatican documents on the topic, and two canon lawyers have all but thrown up their hands…

So, perhaps we are encountering issues with what would be called “pastoral solutions”
Sometimes priests have permission to deviate from a rule, sometimes they are really just using their own judgment for better or for worse.

I was merely curious as to where the rule was written that they must get an annulment before becoming Catholic. eg: if you knew the legal context. I’ve never read the rule that I can recall.