Bringing Back Difficulty to get an Annulment

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Then maybe the requirements for engagement should be upgraded. Hard to believe that no one knows how a Catholic marriage works today so the assumption is always made that it must be invalid. I thought validity always rests with the sacrament until proven otherwise? It seems like there has been a shift or reversal of validity when it come to marriage. Maybe the real question is has anybody ever been denied an annulment recently?

I look at it this way.

Annulments are not infallible.

It is really none of my business what someone is doing to become right with the Church. I equate this knowing about annulments like knowing how many times a person attends confession, it really is none of my business and affects my spiritual life in no way.

 

[Phemie]

Might the percentage indicate other things? Such as: 1) the better access to forms, paperwork, parish records, etc, that are needed for an annulment? I just think about other predominately Catholic countries (like Haiti) where access to the neccessary documents to procure an annulment are nearly destroyed or non-existent. That would definitely impede the entire process altogether.

And 2) Might this indicate that Catholics seeking an annulment want to acutally follow the Church’s teaching and “set things aright” by trying for an annulment? Maybe lower percentages indicate a “laissez faire” attitude toward trying to follow the Church’s teaching on subsequent marriages? Might these folks just “forget” the Church and go to another denomination where annulments are not necessary?

I don’t know - - - I am not a theologian; just kinda thinking out loud.

Another reason is that there has been an explosion of divorces among North American Catholics. We now have about the same percentage of marriages that end in divorce as anyone else in Canada and the US.

Every time I hear “There were only X number of annulments granted in year Z” my first question is “How many petitions did the Tribunal process that year?” Percentages matter more than the actual number. If only 10% of petitions resulted in decrees in 1968 and now that percentage is 90%, then perhaps we have a problem. Is it with the annulment process or with the ease with which people get married in the Church without proper preparation or understanding of what marriage really is? I look at the pitiful marriage prep in my parish (do a work book and spend, maybe, 90 minutes with the priest in 30 minute intervals after one or two chapters – usually ending a week or so before the wedding so little time to reflect) and know that some of the marriages that are celebrated have to be invalid simply because the couple never come to church and have no clue what the Church teaches about marriage. Even if they did come to Church they’d still have no clue because never, ever, ever is it talked about. There is no religious education in the parish other than preparation for First Communion and Reconciliation so they won’t learn it there either.

We’ve seen a couple come to get married after a big fuss was made because he was a KofC and elected to a position on the executive. The older members protested because he was in a common-law relationship with the mother of his 4 year old daughter. They proceeded to get married and within less than a year the wife was gone to live with a married lover 25 years her senior, leaving the daughter behind in her husband’s custody. Free consent? Don’t think so. Intent to ‘forsake all others’? Hmm, don’t think so. Understanding of Catholic marriage? Doubt it.

 

[otjm]

Then maybe the requirements for engagement should be upgraded. Hard to believe that no one knows how a Catholic marriage works today so the assumption is always made that it must be invalid. I thought validity always rests with the sacrament until proven otherwise? It seems like there has been a shift or reversal of validity when it come to marriage. Maybe the real question is has anybody ever been denied an annulment recently?

the only poll that I have seen was taken by CARA, and I have yet to see anyone attack the poll as inaccurate or misleading

What CARA reported in their polling was as follows: 7% of divorced Catholics have received a decree of nullity.

8% of divorced Catholics have been denied* a decree.

85% of divorced Catholics have not even started the process

Most people are not very familiar with the process; and those who do not like it or do not understand it, and in particular some of those whose spouse has received a decree both parties have received it - but here I mean the other spouse was the “moving party”) have a tendency to repeat the same old tired arguments, which arguments ignore the reality of marriage, divorce and nullity decrees.

For starters, let’s clear up one item; there seems to be little legitimate question to the issue that for at lest a significant period of time, some tribunals issued decrees of nullity that were more “pastorally” driven than factually driven. Both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have addressed that issue, and from what little I can glean, much of that has been cleaned up.

But what most people are not aware of is the process itself. Above I noted that CARA has indicated that 8% have been denied a decree. That needs some explaining.

If one starts the process with a tribunal and is not able to gather sufficient facts to show proof that there was a factor which rendered the marriage ceremony a nullity, in the vast majority of cases the case will be dropped, withdrawn, or may be factored out before the tribunal ever receives a filing because of pre-screening.

That does not mean that the facts don’t exist; they may or may not. There can be a number of issues that can cause problems in trying to prepare and present a case and none of those speak one way or the other to the validity of the marriage. The Church presumes the validity of the marriage until proven other wise. Presumption is just that - it is the operative position the Church takes on the matter because She has no other evidence. And all must then operate on that presumption until further showing to the contrary.

People, however, confuse presumption with fact. The presumption by the Church is that 93% of all divorced Catholics were in a valid marriage. That, for anyone who really wants to think hard about the matter, should bring some perspective.

The quote by Geremia is one that gets trotted out with regularity, and is accepted by people who don’t think things through. Implicit in it is that the changes in Canon law which widened the grounds for a decree are at best suspect, and at worst, heretical. Without having to go through a major exposition of the matter, prior Canon law did not recognize much in terms of the issue of intent - that is, the psychological issues which could prevent a true intent to confect the sacrament.

The fact that some tribunals have abused the law is not proof that the substance of the law is invalid; rather, it is proof that the substance of the law was incorrectly applied. Different matter.

In other words, if a valid grounds for finding that a marriage was not confected was not part of Canon law, then Canon law would not provide the means of making a correct determination. It is a bit akin to saying “This car is capable of running” when one does not have the key; if the key were available and used, all would know the car would not run. But lacking the key, we only have the presumption that the car will run when the key is inserted.

Another way of saying it is that those who quote that statistic presume that prior to the 1984 Code change, only 600 divorces per year were of invalid marriages. Because the rest of the divorces did not have the “key”, it was not a finding that the other divorces were of valid marriages, but only that the rest were presumed valid.

 

[otjm]

Note - from my prior comments I don’t mean to be casual about the matter. The Church has some tremendous problems to confront. We had catechesis go into the toilet in the early 1970’s, and as one bishop put it publicly, we have lost 2 generations who know little or nothing about their faith. That leads to the obvious (or not so obvious) filling of that vacuum with whatever society is saying about marriage.

Marriage was headed for troubles in the 1920’s when we moved out of the Victorian era and into the “roaring 20’s”, and issues concerning other than traditional marriages came to the forefront of the “elite”. By the time we get to the 1960’s, the 20’s, the “beat” generation, and the expansion of post high-school education introduced more and more people to “novel” ideas and theories of marriage, family, and other relationships.

It seems only in the last 10 years or so that we have heard a wider cry about the attacks on marriage - which seems akin to closing the barn door after the horse is in the next county…

What seems truly amazing is that anyone can actually confect a valid marriage; living in a society that seems to accept divorce as almost a foregone conclusion, it is hard to believe that many approaching the altar don’t have that in the back of their mind. and that goes directly to intent as to permanence. I was raised in an era where the larger part of society accepted marriage as permanent. Any more? The larger part of society accepts divorce as almost a given.

 

[jmcrae]

Then maybe the requirements for engagement should be upgraded. Hard to believe that no one knows how a Catholic marriage works today so the assumption is always made that it must be invalid. I thought validity always rests with the sacrament until proven otherwise? It seems like there has been a shift or reversal of validity when it come to marriage. Maybe the real question is has anybody ever been denied an annulment recently?

If the case is impossible, it will be stopped before it gets to the Tribunal. Also, a lot of people never even ask - they just carry on raising their kids and living their lives, without thinking of remarriage. Or they decide that their priest is a big meanie for requiring the proper paper work, and remarry outside of the Church.

 

[MusicforMovies]

it still is. I speak from experience, it is not a stroll in the park and it is never guaranteed

I am split on this - on the one hand the experience - of getting an annulment - was darn right frustrating and psychologically extremely hard to go through. It is NOT - theologically and just plain personal experience - the same as a civil divorce. The civil divorce was easy - the annulment was not.

Now, having said the above, I also appreciated as well - the annulment process really makes you think and shows how much the Church wishes to protect the sanctity and the permanence of a lawful matrimony.

I don’t think annulments should be made ‘easier’, but I do - DO think that the Church should have a special ministry to help those going through the process submitting our case to the decision of the Church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Another reason is that there has been an explosion of divorces among North American Catholics. We now have about the same percentage of marriages that end in divorce as anyone else in Canada and the US.

Every time I hear “There were only X number of annulments granted in year Z” my first question is “How many petitions did the Tribunal process that year?” Percentages matter more than the actual number. If only 10% of petitions resulted in decrees in 1968 and now that percentage is 90%, then perhaps we have a problem.

I disagree that percentages matter more than the actual number.

To start the process there are preliminary stages that one must go through. If less are applying now knowing that they will not get the result they are looking for then the percentages would not show that but the actual number applying might.

 

[Phemie]

I don’t think annulments should be made ‘easier’, but I do - DO think that the Church should have a special ministry to help those going through the process submitting our case to the decision of the Church.

I understand what you’re saying.

Our bishop had appointed a former Sister to do that for our parish. She was a counsellor too, so it was a good thing to have her there. Unfortunately she went off to Africa so that duty reverted to the priests who aren’t always the best persons for the job.

 

[otjm]

I disagree that percentages matter more than the actual number.

To start the process there are preliminary stages that one must go through. If less are applying now knowing that they will not get the result they are looking for then the percentages would not show that but the actual number applying might.

I would agree that a percentage figure would not necessarily be meaningful. In addition, a case that does not proceed to a decision is still a case; but because there is no decision (I do not believe there is any official reporting of cases filed but not completed - that is, withdrawn), most people are only going to be left with the cases in which a decree of nullity was granted, and the few cases which the tribunal makes a formal decision that a decree will not be granted.

The presumption is being made that because very few cases come to a final decision that no decree of nullity will be granted, that this means that most cases are granted a decree of nullity. That, however, is not factually true. Any case that is started -whether it is simply an inquiry with the local pastor, who says there is no case, or one in which the paperwork is tarted but not completed, or one in which the paperwork is completed and sent to the tribunal, but the case withdrawn before a decision is rendered, are all, each and every one of them, cases in which a decree of nullity is not granted.

Additionally, going back to the time where the 1917 law was in effect and noting that “only 600 (or so) cases were granted” makes the presumption that either Canon law is now wrong, or that tribunals are completely ignoring the law. While there is evidence that some cases have been wrongfully decided in the past since the 1984 Code change, comparing cases decided under the 1917 law and the 1984 law is without any logical foundation; they simply cannot be compared. The law changed tremendously in 1984 as new grounds were recognized. Talking about what occurred before that is irrelevant to any intelligent and honest discussion.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I would agree that a percentage figure would not necessarily be meaningful. In addition, a case that does not proceed to a decision is still a case; but because there is no decision (I do not believe there is any official reporting of cases filed but not completed - that is, withdrawn), most people are only going to be left with the cases in which a decree of nullity was granted, and the few cases which the tribunal makes a formal decision that a decree will not be granted.

The presumption is being made that because very few cases come to a final decision that no decree of nullity will be granted, that this means that most cases are granted a decree of nullity. That, however, is not factually true. Any case that is started -whether it is simply an inquiry with the local pastor, who says there is no case, or one in which the paperwork is tarted but not completed, or one in which the paperwork is completed and sent to the tribunal, but the case withdrawn before a decision is rendered, are all, each and every one of them, cases in which a decree of nullity is not granted.

Additionally, going back to the time where the 1917 law was in effect and noting that “only 600 (or so) cases were granted” makes the presumption that either Canon law is now wrong, or that tribunals are completely ignoring the law. While there is evidence that some cases have been wrongfully decided in the past since the 1984 Code change, comparing cases decided under the 1917 law and the 1984 law is without any logical foundation; they simply cannot be compared. The law changed tremendously in 1984 as new grounds were recognized. Talking about what occurred before that is irrelevant to any intelligent and honest discussion.

I agree that all the percentages will tell us is how many decrees of nullity were granted and how many were refused. They will not tell us what kind of restrictions were placed on the people who received the decree of nullity. I know some decrees require counseling before a party may attempt another marriage within the Catholic Church. I know of one specific case where a decree was granted but both parties are enjoined from ever attempting another marriage within the Catholic Church. The decree states their invincible immaturity as to what marriage is.

We do not hear about these sort of things.

 

[otjm]

I agree that all the percentages will tell us is how many decrees of nullity were granted and how many were refused. They will not tell us what kind of restrictions were placed on the people who received the decree of nullity. I know some decrees require counseling before a party may attempt another marriage within the Catholic Church. I know of one specific case where a decree was granted but both parties are enjoined from ever attempting another marriage within the Catholic Church. The decree states their invincible immaturity as to what marriage is.

We do not hear about these sort of things.

I agree with you about not hearing the restrictions. The point I was trying to make is that the statistics we see are a false representation of the realities of the world of post-divorce church-related activity for the simple reason that most, if not all of cases which do not make it to a final determination do not get reported at all in any fashion.

That is to say, the statistics we see on denial of decrees of nullity are based on the very few cases that actually make it to a decision; most cases which would be denied, or would appear to be denied if carried out to a conclusion are either not submitted, or are withdrawn before a decision.

Thus the net result that many of the complaints against the tribunals are based on false premises - that being that the tribunals grant almost all cases. That is simply not true.

 

[stormy99]

I agree with NOBEERINHEAVEN—From what I hear it is pretty much filing the paperwork—going through the motions—and getting signed off. What a horrible feeling for people that are fighting for their marriage and really know that an anullment is wrong.
Prayers.

**Here’s what happens…when I was first married young many years to a Mormon it was in a Presbyterian Church…when the requirements to become a Mormon were revealed to me…I couldn’t do them…they don’t let you in on what is required until it’s too late…our marriage was annulled in a civil court…flash forward…I married a Catholic but did not convert…his Parish Priest was rather unkind which is all I’ll say on that…Much later I went through RCIA classes and had to apply for an invalidity of marriage to the Marriage Tribunal…at this time my husband had been dignosed with cancer…I had to fill out many pages of paper…write answers that took 21 typed pages to complete…find my ex husband and with his help…he had to fill out endless paperwork…then the witnesses were called in and on the phone…The Sister who was a Judge…literally grilled one witness twice…including the fact her signature looked different on different papers she had signed…then the case went to the Tribunal where the Defender.of the Faith defended our marriage as valid and my advocate argued it was not…when they reached their decision that it was not valid based on grave lack of descretionary judgement…they decide the grounds…you don’t…then the petition went to another diocese for the same scrutiny…they then concurred the marriage was invalid…and the nullifcation was granted.

You had to write an entire biography…how you were raised, how you were punished…questions of your parents fidelity…if you and your husband slept together before marriage…did you want children…did you intend not to be faithful to your husband…they wanted to know literally everything about your childhood…then on to your ex husband…and everything about him that you knew…meanwhile had had to do the same thing…it was an excuriating self examination of something that happened a long time ago…It opened up old feelings and hurt both of us to do this…

This is the easy annullment proceedure…I saw nothing easy about it…It took days for me to write this and an ocean of tears…that’s how easy it was…and then you don’t have any idea if it will be granted. Meanwhile classes continued without my knowing if I would be confirmed or not at the Easter Vigil…our Priest arranged for me to be confirmed within Canon Law…when my nullifaction decree was issued…my present husband and I had our marriage convalidated…he is now a Come Home Catholic…we attend Mass more than once a week.

But the process was gut wrenching and opened a past my ex and I thought was long over…thankfully he was willing to help in any way he could…we talk on the phone at least once a week…finally friends…he lives far away…

So never think this process is so easy…it isn’t in our Diocese and the Sister in Charge was unrelenting in her search for anything to block it…

stormy

.**

 

[otjm]

**Here’s what happens…when I was first married young many years to a Mormon it was in a Presbyterian Church…when the requirements to become a Mormon were revealed to me…I couldn’t do them…they don’t let you in on what is required until it’s too late…our marriage was annulled in a civil court…flash forward…I married a Catholic but did not convert…his Parish Priest was rather unkind which is all I’ll say on that…Much later I went through RCIA classes and had to apply for an invalidity of marriage to the Marriage Tribunal…at this time my husband had been dignosed with cancer…I had to fill out many pages of paper…write answers that took 21 typed pages to complete…find my ex husband and with his help…he had to fill out endless paperwork…then the witnesses were called in and on the phone…The Sister who was a Judge…literally grilled one witness twice…including the fact her signature looked different on different papers she had signed…then the case went to the Tribunal where the Defender.of the Faith defended our marriage as valid and my advocate argued it was not…when they reached their decision that it was not valid based on grave lack of descretionary judgement…they decide the grounds…you don’t…then the petition went to another diocese for the same scrutiny…they then concurred the marriage was invalid…and the nullifcation was granted.

You had to write an entire biography…how you were raised, how you were punished…questions of your parents fidelity…if you and your husband slept together before marriage…did you want children…did you intend not to be faithful to your husband…they wanted to know literally everything about your childhood…then on to your ex husband…and everything about him that you knew…meanwhile had had to do the same thing…it was an excuriating self examination of something that happened a long time ago…It opened up old feelings and hurt both of us to do this…

This is the easy annullment proceedure…I saw nothing easy about it…It took days for me to write this and an ocean of tears…that’s how easy it was…and then you don’t have any idea if it will be granted. Meanwhile classes continued without my knowing if I would be confirmed or not at the Easter Vigil…our Priest arranged for me to be confirmed within Canon Law…when my nullifaction decree was issued…my present husband and I had our marriage convalidated…he is now a Come Home Catholic…we attend Mass more than once a week.

But the process was gut wrenching and opened a past my ex and I thought was long over…thankfully he was willing to help in any way he could…we talk on the phone at least once a week…finally friends…he lives far away…

So never think this process is so easy…it isn’t in our Diocese and the Sister in Charge was unrelenting in her search for anything to block it…

stormy

.**

Thank you for sharing. You are right - it is not easy, nor is it something that most people are flippant about.

Much of the criticism that comes about decrees of nullity comes from two sources - those ignorant of the process, and those who did not want the divorce, have had no healing concerning the wounds from the prior marriage and the divorce, and want the Church to validate their wounds and “punish” the other party.

The failure of a marriage for those who were trying to make the marriage “work” - and this can be both sides - is not a light thing. It may be light for others, but for them marriage often was not taken seriously. Too often, when one is wounded emotionally (and often psychologically), the pain is so great, and the feeling of abandonment is so great, that they cannot see at all what the other party saw - or didn’t see that they should have.

And you are stating something that many, many others who have gone through the tribunal process have said - that is it a very painful process, and dredges up old issues and effectively pulls off old scar tissue and opens old wounds.

I am sorry it was so hard. On the other hand, it appears that those involved in the process take marriage very seriously - as the Church does, and as you do also, I am sure. That may not make it any easier, but perhaps more understandable.

 

[stormy99]

**It was how it had to be done…so I did it correctly…it isn’t suppose to be easy. It is designed so you have to think about everything…and have to be honest about it. There was not a thing I wrote or answered that I did not send to my ex first…he lives far away. If he had any objections, corrections or comments, then he could tell me. He never did say anything…just that that’s correct…or you’re right.

It’s important to the Church it is done according to Canon Law and it should be important to those that apply.

I might not have done this process had my husband not been diagnosed with Cancer…but the entire process leaves me free of my first marriage…

I have friends who decided not to go through it…because it is intrusive…and brings up the past and puts it right in your face…well so be it…

It’s over now…and I would never bad mouth the process…sigh…perhaps…but that’s all…rules are rules.

stormy**

 

[JReducation]

I believe that the problem is not as simple as saying that we should turn back the clock to before Vatican II. The rules of annulment did not change with Vatican II. The rule is the same. “The marriage bond is either valid or non-existent. It falls upon the petitioner to prove that the bond never existed.” That has never changed.

There are other things that have changed. I think some things have been mentioned. There was a stigma attached to divorce that is no longer present in today’s society. Often, you had cases where people remained in an apparent marriage. Meaning that they remained in a relationship that appeared to be a marriage, but where the bond was not present. However, the bond was never put to the test, because people did not consider divorce as easily as people do today.

Another difference between then and now is the system itself. The sytem is a lot more sophisticated. Communication is better. We have better sciences and methods to study a bond that were none existent 50-years ago. But the conditions for validity have never changed.

A marriage has to be freely chosen. The couple must be in love. Neither party can have a former marital bond. Both parties must be mature enough to enter into a marriage. Both parties must be open to procreation. There cannot be a situation that forces the couple to get married. The couple must be able to fulfill the marriage duties. The couple must enter the marriage with a commitment to remain together for life.

Here is where we get into some differences between the past and the present. The biggest issue is often procreation. Many people enter marriage without the necesssary openness to procreation. This is already on their mind before they marry. We’re not talking about people who decide to contracept after they have three children. We’re talking about people who enter a marriage planning to have only three children. They have already created an impediment prior to the wedding. Like this, there are many other scenarios that were not present in the past. Many people enter with an “openness to divorce” if it doesn’t work out. That’s another impediment to a bond. Then there is the question of maturity. The fact that people are getting married older is not an indicator that they are mature enough to be married. To be married you must understand that this is a lifetime commitment, that will require work, that will require great sacrifices, and most of all, will require great trust in each other and God. Unfortunately, our society is not oriented that way. This is where secularism has infiltrated the modern family.

It is true that in the past people entered into arranged marriages. There is a serious question about freedom there. What made these situations different was that these men and women made an attempt to make the marriage work. At some point, the bond is validated, because the couple is not fighting it, but are working to strengthen it. When people enter a marriage out of some false sense of duty and make no attempt to grow in love and closer to each other, it raises all kinds of red flags about the validity of the bond.

None of these things by themselves are sufficient reason to declare a marriage null and void. But they are good reasons to raise the question. I call them red flags. I’m not a Canon Lawyer. I cannot say what degree of these conditions makes the bond non-existent or what combination. That would be up to a judge to decide. But these are real issues that we are dealing with in today’s world.

These issues raise a more serious question. Are people discerning enough before they marry or are they not thinking it through prayerfully, before the wedding?

The Church’s law has not changed. The requirements for a valid marriage have not changed. What has changed is the people who are entering marriage. I know that I can’t really say how many people I know who are ready for marriage. We can only go on what people say when they ask to be married.

Defenders of the Bond have a very challenging job to do, because there are so many factors in today’s world that can become impediments to a bond. As I said, I’m not a Canon Lawyer. My opinions are as valid or invalid as the next guy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sillara]

I believe that the problem is not as simple as saying that we should turn back the clock to before Vatican II. The rules of annulment did not change with Vatican II. The rule is the same. “The marriage bond is either valid or non-existent. It falls upon the petitioner to prove that the bond never existed.” That has never changed.

There are other things that have changed. I think some things have been mentioned. There was a stigma attached to divorce that is no longer present in today’s society. Often, you had cases where people remained in an apparent marriage. Meaning that they remained in a relationship that appeared to be a marriage, but where the bond was not present. However, the bond was never put to the test, because people did not consider divorce as easily as people do today.

Another difference between then and now is the system itself. The sytem is a lot more sophisticated. Communication is better. We have better sciences and methods to study a bond that were none existent 50-years ago. But the conditions for validity have never changed.

A marriage has to be freely chosen. The couple must be in love. Neither party can have a former marital bond. Both parties must be mature enough to enter into a marriage. Both parties must be open to procreation. There cannot be a situation that forces the couple to get married. The couple must be able to fulfill the marriage duties. The couple must enter the marriage with a commitment to remain together for life.

Actually, they do not need to be “in love”, nor are they required to have a completely accurate acceptance of the Catholic understanding of “openness to life”. They must simply not be intending to permanently and entirely exclude children. And the required level of maturity is not that high. One is not required to be capable of being a GOOD spouse, let alone a great one. One is merely required to be capable of being A spouse, no more.

 

[stormy99]

Cecilia—I guess from everyone else I have heard from—it has appeared to be simply petitioning for one and getting approved. I guess I have never asked about the length of time it takes…or what the exact procedure is with meetings and everything.

It just seems to me, from what I have read (if it is true)—that a 90-95% approval of anullment petitions in the US seems ridiculous-especially when taking into account what happens on appeal…or the approval rate around the rest of the world.

I hope that you get through this process with the result you are looking for and your faith.

Does anyone have copies of any blank documents that they received (questionairres, etc) for starting out the anullment process? I am just curious as to the questions that are asked…I know basically the grounds, but am trying to figure out everything about the process-as I see that in my future.

**I might have some of the questions…the originals went to the Tribunal…with all 21 pages of answers stapled…that was just one set of questions I answered…

To start the invalidity process contact your Parish Priest…he will guide you and then start collecting all your documents…yep…baptismal certificates for both of you…marriage license…offical no less…and you can write the Tribunal or c

all them and they will sent out the first of many packets…and just when you think what else could they possibly need to know…here comes another huge packet…not to mention…that you also get to pay for it…in our Diocese the cost is $500…and this does not quarentee the marriage will be found invalid…nope…just the administrative cost for the whole thing…I paid $100 a month until $500 was reached…before the invalidity decision was rendered…

They do have plans if you can’t afford it…I could so that wasn’t an issue…

Good luck

stormy**

 

[PbloPicasso]

What If A Catholic Wanted To Marry A Non Catholic Who Has Been Divorced.does He Have To Get An Annulment From His Church First. What If A Catholic Wanted To Marry Outside Of There Church To A Divorced Person. Does God Bless This Union. Or Should We Just Be Thankful They Got Marreid At All

In order for a marriage to considered “valid” the persons seeking the sacrament of Holy Matrimony must meet several requirements. But the simple answer is “YES”, their marriage(s) must have been declared null or they receive a declaration of nullity. If a Catholic attempts marriage without this the marriage is not valid. They must also be married in a Catholic church with a member of the Catholic clergy. For protestants, they can get married standing on their heads at the bottom of the ocean. But if it is discovered that one of the parties was baptized in the Catholic Church and was not raised Catholic and thought they were not Catholic, they would have to meet all of the same requirements imposed on Catholic baptized and raised in the Church.

 

[Sheeniac]

I don’t think love is required either, but I did want to comment on this:

"Many people enter with an “openness to divorce” if it doesn’t work out. That’s another impediment to a bond. "

~~

I agree with this completely. People no longer think of divorce as a big deal, nor is adultery that major either.

My mother, born in the 40s, was brought up in the old way of thinking. She lost her belief decades ago. But I remember from talking with her as a child, that there was no way she would ever cheat on my father because although she no longer believed, he wasn’t worth risking her soul over.

(To explain a bit, my father was a violent alcoholic and she finally worked up enough courage to leave him. But he accused her of infidelity using the logic only an a raging drunk can follow… When I asked her about it in an attempt to understand why he would say such things, she gave me the above answer as part of her reasoning as to why his accusations were unthinkable.)

I doubt many vaerage Catholics think of it in those terms nowdays, expect for the very orthodox and devout.

 

[Geremia]

The Church’s law has not changed. The requirements for a valid marriage have not changed.

I thought the 1983 Code of Canon Law changed its definition of marriage from the 1917 version:

Can. 1055 §1: The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

versus the 1917, e.g.:

1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1081, §2: the exclusive and perpetual right over the body of the partner as regards the acts capable in themselves of generating offspring

The 1983 version, although more elaborate in other respects, fails to mention the crucial word “exclusive,” and it lists secondary ends before the primary end of “procreation and education of offspring.” There is too much emphasis on “love” and little on commitment (“exclusive”) which could be contributing to both priests and those engaged not understanding marriage and hence an increase in invalidly-contracted marriages.