Can u date awaiting on anullment?

[dborer42]

What ranks higher, the civil divorce or the annulment from the church? Now I figure this, If the church cannot annul without the divorce first then wouldn’t it mean the civil is higher ranked then the church? And if the civil was higher then wouldn’t it mean that you are realy divorced before the church say’s you are?

Nancy,

I hope you don’t mind my answering in place of rpp.

Let me rephrase the question. Which is the higher law, God’s law or man’s law? Of course, it is God’s law. Now, following Christ’s own words of rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s, we are to be law abiding citizens. However, when man’s laws conflict with God’s law, we have a duty to oppose evil and illegitimate laws. For example, we are to oppose any and all laws intended to further abortion.

Now, to bring it back to the question of divorce/annulments, the Church can investigate a marriage to determine validity without civil divorce. I believe validity should be determined before tearing apart a marriage that may well be valid. There is NOTHING in Canon Law the requires a civil divorce first. The practice of requiring civil divorce prior to investigating the marriage in NOT a universal practice. I think it is legitimate to question whether justice is being done to both spouses, not to mention children, by forcing the emotional violence of civil divorce on all involved, quite often unilaterally decided by one of the spouses, before the Church will get involved. And then by that point, contrary to Church teaching regarding the presumption of validity until proven otherwise, all too often tribunals see civil divorce as “proof” of invalidity.

David

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Nancy,

I hope you don’t mind my answering in place of rpp.

Let me rephrase the question. Which is the higher law, God’s law or man’s law? Of course, it is God’s law. Now, following Christ’s own words of rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s, we are to be law abiding citizens. However, when man’s laws conflict with God’s law, we have a duty to oppose evil and illegitimate laws. For example, we are to oppose any and all laws intended to further abortion.

Now, to bring it back to the question of divorce/annulments, the Church can investigate a marriage to determine validity without civil divorce. I believe validity should be determined before tearing apart a marriage that may well be valid. There is NOTHING in Canon Law the requires a civil divorce first. The practice of requiring civil divorce prior to investigating the marriage in NOT a universal practice. I think it is legitimate to question whether justice is being done to both spouses, not to mention children, by forcing the emotional violence of civil divorce on all involved, quite often unilaterally decided by one of the spouses, before the Church will get involved. And then by that point, contrary to Church teaching regarding the presumption of validity until proven otherwise, all too often tribunals see civil divorce as “proof” of invalidity.

David

WoW that is amazing, you don’t even need to file for the civil divorce if the church renders it is invalid to begin with? AH! but now is that to remarry they do that, or for you to be annuled? but if one is not catholic and should leave after the annulment is he still married? and can then get remarried again without the civil divorce? But if he is Baptized into the church he cannot right? Love of Christ Nancy

 

[rpp]

Hello rpp, What ranks higher, the civil divorce or the annulment from the church? Now I figure this, If the church cannot annul without the divorce first then wouldn’t it mean the civil is higher ranked then the church? And if the civil was higher then wouldn’t it mean that you are realy divorced before the church say’s you are? i am not asking this to be funny I am realy listening to you and trying to learn what the church teaches and why. Love of Christ Nancy

It is not a matter of ranking, but rather of common practice. Why in the world would a person petition for a declaration of nullity while still married to a person?

I think your post is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the annulment process and a declaration of nullity (or validity) really is. So bear with me while I try to explain. Forgive me if you know all this already.

First and foremost, A declaration of nullity is not a Catholic divorce. Rather it is the verdict which comes after an investigation and a trial before a Church court known as the Tribunal. All diocese have a Tribunal. The purpose of the annulment process is to determine is a marriage which *may or may not have *has ended in civil divorce was sacramentaly valid.

There are only two possible results in the annulment process.

• A finding in the negative that the marriage was valid and that the sacrament of matrimony was not validly conferred. In the eyes of the Church, the divorced couple is considered single and never having been married sacramentaly.

OR

• The the marriage is indeed valid and the couple, despite being divorced, is considered to still be married in the church.

Under canon law, the Church presumes all marriages to be valid unless there is a clear defect (divorced without an annulment, or bigamous/polygamous marriages). Even if the marriage was a civil marriage or took place in a different religion.

Annulment is actually a process, not a thing. The result is either a declaration of validity or a declaration of nullity. Remember, the word “null” means “never existed” and that is the sense it is used here.

The tribunal examines testimony from each spouse and witnesses either present at the wedding or who knew both the husband and wife prior to the marriage. They investigate the events leading up to the wedding to determine if the vows entered into then were sacramentaly valid. The Tribunal does not examine what occurred after the wedding and nor the married life except to determine if evidence later surfaced that would help prove or disprove whether the marriage was valid (for example, a man lying about not have a vasectomy and the truth comes out later, or the wife hiding the fact that she has a serious mental illness and the man find out by discovering her prescriptions).

Once the tribunal has finished the investigation, there is a trial. The tribunal appoints and an Advocate for the petitioner and a Defender of the Bond. They argue against and for a valid marriage to the Tribunal. The Tribunal then makes a determination, which is only preliminary. The tribunal must then send the entire case to a Tribunal in another diocese to review their decision. If the other Tribunal agrees, then the petitioner is notified of the result. If not, the case is (I believe but I may be wrong here) the Roman Rota for a complete review and yet another trial.

 

[rpp]

WoW that is amazing, you don’t even need to file for the civil divorce if the church renders it is invalid to begin with? AH! but now is that to remarry they do that, or for you to be annuled? but if one is not catholic and should leave after the annulment is he still married? and can then get remarried again without the civil divorce? But if he is Baptized into the church he cannot right? Love of Christ Nancy

Again the Church presumes all marriages to be valid, except in cases where there are clear defects such asa those I mentioned in my previous post.

Should, in some bizarre set of circumstances, a one or both people in a marriage choose file a petition for a declaration of nullity, there are a number of things that may happen. The bishop in each diocese is with in right to set prerequisites and conditions upon those petitioning for a nullity. I suspect that very few, inf any, diocese would accept a petition for nullity for a person who is seeking to annul a marriage which is still extant (no divorce). Many diocese have a waiting period after the divorce before a petition will be accepted, this is often six months or one year.

However, if in some even crazier set of circumstances, the Tribunal accepted the petition from a still married couple and declared their marriage, which is still valid in civil law, null and the second diocese agreed with their decision, the only course for the couple would be to either immediately seek a civil divorce, or race to a priest and have a proper sacramental wedding.

But like I said, who would want to even participate in such a process?

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

It is not a matter of ranking, but rather of common practice. Why in the world would a person petition for a declaration of nullity while still married to a person?

I think your post is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the annulment process and a declaration of nullity (or validity) really is. So bear with me while I try to explain. Forgive me if you know all this already.

First and foremost, A declaration of nullity is not a Catholic divorce. Rather it is the verdict which comes after an investigation and a trial before a Church court known as the Tribunal. All diocese have a Tribunal. The purpose of the annulment process is to determine is a marriage which *may or may not have *has ended in civil divorce was sacramentaly valid.

There are only two possible results in the annulment process.

• A finding in the negative that the marriage was valid and that the sacrament of matrimony was not validly conferred. In the eyes of the Church, the divorced couple is considered single and never having been married sacramentaly.

OR

• The the marriage is indeed valid and the couple, despite being divorced, is considered to still be married in the church.

Under canon law, the Church presumes all marriages to be valid unless there is a clear defect (divorced without an annulment, or bigamous/polygamous marriages). Even if the marriage was a civil marriage or took place in a different religion.

Annulment is actually a process, not a thing. The result is either a declaration of validity or a declaration of nullity. Remember, the word “null” means “never existed” and that is the sense it is used here.

The tribunal examines testimony from each spouse and witnesses either present at the wedding or who knew both the husband and wife prior to the marriage. They investigate the events leading up to the wedding to determine if the vows entered into then were sacramentaly valid. The Tribunal does not examine what occurred after the wedding and nor the married life except to determine if evidence later surfaced that would help prove or disprove whether the marriage was valid (for example, a man lying about not have a vasectomy and the truth comes out later, or the wife hiding the fact that she has a serious mental illness and the man find out by discovering her prescriptions).

Once the tribunal has finished the investigation, there is a trial. The tribunal appoints and an Advocate for the petitioner and a Defender of the Bond. They argue against and for a valid marriage to the Tribunal. The Tribunal then makes a determination, which is only preliminary. The tribunal must then send the entire case to a Tribunal in another diocese to review their decision. If the other Tribunal agrees, then the petitioner is notified of the result. If not, the case is (I believe but I may be wrong here) the Roman Rota for a complete review and yet another trial.

I’m going with your first question asking Why would a person want to annul while still with another person in marriage? Well if the other person was not Catholic and they were married in another congergation, and that person that was not Catholic was not Baptized either. thay is why. So that could make a difference to nullify? Nancy

I almost forgot rpp, Thank you for the information, I realy did not understand, and I am still a little confused because it was stated it is not all the same for every one, so that can be hard to give the answer to if the answer can flexuate so. Love of Christ Nancy

 

[chevalier]

There is no nullifying, actually. To nullify means to make something null. You can nullify a cheque and you could nullify elections in a bigger picture. Some secular jurisdictions nullify marriages. However, the Church’s tribunals only declare a marriage null, meaning it has never been valid, ever. This is similar to a declaration of death of a person gone missing - it doesn’t kill a person who actually lives, nor does refusal to declare him dead bring him back to life if he has already died in the meantime. Same way, if a marriage was valid when it was starting, i.e. when vows were being exchanged, it stays valid forever (notwithstanding the dissolution of an unconsummated marriage, but let’s not go there right now).

There is truly nothing in canon law to require a civil divorce. In fact, not being a US resident, I couldn’t believe when I first heard of that requirement by American dioceses. Normally, I would divorce only after getting the nullity decree.

I don’t know why they do it. Maybe they want to be sure that the parties can’t be reconciled to each other. Attempts are always made at reconciling the parties before issuing the nullity decree anyway, at least where I live.

What needs to be pointed out, however, is that when you’re challenging the validity of a marriage, you obviously don’t sleep with your spouse-or-not-spouse. You don’t need to be married civilly. Since you don’t want to stay together, that’s another reason you don’t need to be civilly married. Except it feels rather bad to divorce when you don’t know if you’re married or not (here I mean really married, validly and sacramentally, not just civilly) and it will require a lot of work if it turns out you’re married, i.e. your marriage is valid.

 

[Bluegoat]

WoW that is amazing, you don’t even need to file for the civil divorce if the church renders it is invalid to begin with? AH! but now is that to remarry they do that, or for you to be annuled? but if one is not catholic and should leave after the annulment is he still married? and can then get remarried again without the civil divorce? But if he is Baptized into the church he cannot right? Love of Christ Nancy

If your marriage was deemed null by the Church, but you did not have a civil divorce, you would still be considered married legally. You could not get legally remarried without obtaining a civil divorce, because legally that would be bigamy.

From the perspective of the Church, if your marriage had been declared invalid, but for some reason you remained legally married, you would not be able to remarry because you had a legal impediment to marriage. It would not be right or fair for them to marry you again when you already have legal obligations to another union.

There are two sides to marriage. The side of the Church, which talks about sacramental or natural marriage, what that means spiritually, what is involved in it and what our moral obligations are.

The state, or civil society, is interested in another side of things - the legal bond, the contract. They are interested in the laws that define who can enter that contract, and the obligations they have upon dissolving the contract.

Now, the two sides intersect. The state allows to religious groups to oversee legal marriage unions. The Church is also interested in the legal unions in a number of ways. They represent a vow or promise, even if they are not a real marriage, and that is a serious thing in itself. A Catholic who has an annulment is still morally bound to his legal responsibilities with things like pensions, spousal support, and division of property. He agreed to those things on entering into the civil contract part of the marriage. The Church also believes in the rule of civil law as long as it does not contradict what the Church teaches, so it usually wants people to fulfill all the legal obligations of marriage, like getting a civil marriage license.

Now, if a person applies for and receives an annulment before getting a civil divorce, it would potentially cause a lot of practical problems with those two areas. In most cases it is probably much simpler if the legal divorce happens first, and the annulment second.

 

[Samsara]

In my humble opinion and from my own experience? Definitely
.
However -our definitions of ‘dating’ I believe are very different and in asking the question, I don’t believe we are looking at the whole picture ie your ex-spouse and possible children from this marriage that-as yet-has not been annulled.

Having myself applied for and received a ‘declaration of nullity’ just over a year ago, it has been a difficult road. I have dated, fallen in love with and felt the fire with a man who is in the last stages of the annulment process.I fully understand why many say this behavior is imprudent. However my life - and his-have been richer for the times we have spent together.

It may sound naive but it is the Blessed Sacrament that we adore, literally. Whatever happens-it is in God’s hands.
We share-and by that I mean emotionally and spiritually-a spiritual friendship.
We have coffee together and we are known in the parish to be good friends-possibly like cousins.

Holding hands in public, being seen as exclusively ‘dating’ as boyfriend/girl friend is something we would avoid …but for these reasons: what it would ‘say’ to others in our parish about the sacrament of marriage and how it would impact on his ex-wife and/or children to see us with such disregard for the church’s teachings and for their feelings.

I can understand people thinking: why invest time in something that may not eventuate?
What if he was to be re-united with his wife?? Why would I do it?

Because I have learned how to really love someone in a way I never have before who also has enormous respect for his wife-if not still a deep love.It is self-sacrificing.And the physical side? Touching-hand-holding (the absolute limit)- hugging -no way and kissing…almost a point of no return, feelings of shame and regret.
At times I have been really upset. The Passion (the movie for eg) makes me flood with tears. We were both present at a recent screening. Comfort and holding would be only natural but we are BOTH aware of the trap, given the attraction between us. We both left-I felt his presence as he walked behind me. All i wanted to do was to then be held and spend an hour in adoration with him. But knowing each other so well-it wasn’t the time to relate. And yet, when you love someone? and you know they are there for you? One feels the love-it’s real, it’s chaste and we were strong. Jesus-in the Passion- His love for us…was the focus-not us.

I don’t know if this helps. And I really apologize to anyone i may have offended-or have given an answer- too extended for this space. Dating-someone who isn’t available-calls on all the love of Corinthians. My life since spending time with him and before the Blessed Sacrament has made me learn to love a person…with their needs first.

“My life - regardless of the outcome, what God decides-will always be richer for the time I’ve spent here with you”

I wish you love in your process of discernment.

I will pray, humbly, that God may answer your prayers; that you will find peace and strength in the beauty of simply loving someone deeply as a spiritual friend

God Bless. Alwayz