B
Boulder257
Guest
Do you have to have a civil dovorce before you seek an annulment or can you do both at the same time?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
pensmama87
Guest
In the US, you have to be divorced first.
I don’t know the policy in other countries.
I don’t know the policy in other countries.
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
What are you/they going to do if no annulment is granted?Do you have to have a civil dovorce before you seek an annulment or can you do both at the same time?
A
AnnArbor
Guest
You need the civil divorce first.Do you have to have a civil dovorce before you seek an annulment or can you do both at the same time?
1
1ke
Guest
Canon law:Do you have to have a civil dovorce before you seek an annulment or can you do both at the same time?
Can. 1676 Before accepting a case and whenever there is hope of a favorable outcome, a judge is to use pastoral means to induce the spouses if possible to convalidate the marriage and restore conjugal living.
As this is operationalized at the tribunal level, the pastor and judges have an obligation to determine whether the marriage is irreparably broken down.
One such indicator is a civil divorce. If the couple is still married to each other, then the pastor would work towards reconciliation. Of course, reconciliation can and does occur even after a civil divorce, but a civil divorce is certainly one indicator of how broken the marriage is at that point.
If the couple is still married and has not severed conjugal living, they should continue to work on repairing the marriage, not towards separation.
C
chevalier
Guest
That doesn’t cover people who would prefer to go separate ways but would be willing to live together if the marriage, after investigation, proved null. This is also the problem I have with the US policy of divorce first (which is not the default solution in the universal church).(…)
If the couple is still married and has not severed conjugal living, they should continue to work on repairing the marriage, not towards separation.
X
Xantippe
Guest
That couple is free to get back together if they choose to.That doesn’t cover people who would prefer to go separate ways but would be willing to live together if the marriage, after investigation, proved null. This is also the problem I have with the US policy of divorce first (which is not the default solution in the universal church).
Lots of people remarry each other after divorce.
nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/couples_remarry_ex-spouses.html
1
1ke
Guest
Maybe you have a typo here? I’m not following you.That doesn’t cover people who would prefer to go separate ways but would be willing to live together if the marriage, after investigation, proved null. This is also the problem I have with the US policy of divorce first (which is not the default solution in the universal church).
C
chevalier
Guest
A different type of mistake, I seem to have written the opposite word of what I was thinking.Maybe you have a typo here? I’m not following you.
Personally, if I were in an unhappy marriage of likely invalidity, I would rather challenge the validity of that marriage, find out whether it’s valid or null and be free if it were null, but not get a divorce if it were valid. Civil divorce would be something to do later.
The US policy makes it hard to predicate the further existence of a civil marriage on the validity or invalidity of one’s canonical marriage.
B
Boulder257
Guest
Sorry, just saw this question. I don’t think I have much of a choice, then, do I.What are you/they going to do if no annulment is granted?
1
1ke
Guest
This is a mistaken mentality.but not get a divorce if it were valid
Annulment is not some kind of Catholic divorce where you would stay married if the tribunal found your marriage valid but divorce if it found it were invalid.
ALWAYS the desire is for the couple to remain together. If the couple is aware of a defect, the couple should convalidate, not divorce.
If one is willing to remain married, as indicated above, then the marriage isn’t broken down. No need to petition the tribunal for an investigation. The marriage is valid.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
While I’m not as anti-annulment as some other posters here, I must admit I see this approach as open to abuse. While optimally, a couple that is aware of a defect but wants to remain together would convalidate, I think many would be tempted NOT to do so.This is a mistaken mentality.
Annulment is not some kind of Catholic divorce where you would stay married if the tribunal found your marriage valid but divorce if it found it were invalid.
ALWAYS the desire is for the couple to remain together. If the couple is aware of a defect, the couple should convalidate, not divorce.
If one is willing to remain married, as indicated above, then the marriage isn’t broken down. No need to petition the tribunal for an investigation. The marriage is valid.
Indeed, if all marriages enjoy the presumption of validity, what would be the point of convalidation, anyway? Why not keep enjoying the benefits of marriage including sex, while keeping the option of annulment open just in case the marriage eventually fails?
Not saying couples SHOULD do this, just saying I don’t see any particular safeguard the Church has to prevent them from doing so.
1
1ke
Guest
Can. 1061§3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.Indeed, if all marriages enjoy the presumption of validity, what would be the point of convalidation, anyway?
Because that would be grave matter against the sixth commandment.Why not keep enjoying the benefits of marriage including sex, while keeping the option of annulment open just in case the marriage eventually fails?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.