Conditional Annulment

[Mooseberry]

I am a cradle Catholic and have never been married. My fiance had been married in a Protestant church but divorced after 17 years. After a two year annulment process that was very harrowing and invasive for her, we finally received a declaration of nullity that came with the condition of requiring permission from the local ordinary in order to remarry. (This would include evaluation by ANOTHER therapist.)

She’s at end of her rope and doesn’t believe she has it in her to recount/relive her years of an abusive relationship to yet another person. We have the document stating that her first marriage was invalid. We’re wondering if it would be so wrong to marry civilly and get the marriage convalidated later??? Anything to avoid another therapy session!

 

[Irishmom2]

Have you actually spoken to a priest about your concerns? Maybe I don’t understand what you are saying. You are a bit unclear as to who told you you have to do anything or who is requiring anything. You have a decree of nullify. I don’t understand the whole after process, and maybe you are blowing this up into more than what it really requires.

Please, speak to your priest before you do anything civilly.

 

[runningdude]

If your fiancee is not Catholic, I believe permission from the ordinary (bishop) is standard. You might be asked to take premarital counseling/“Pre-Cana”, but this shouldn’t be invasive (when my parents took it, they just spoke to an older married couple for a while).

If you are looking to avoid church bureaucracy, getting a civil marriage and asking for a “convalidation” will just restart the whole annulment process.

 

[edward_george1]

If you are looking to avoid church bureaucracy, getting a civil marriage and asking for a “convalidation” will just restart the whole annulment process.

This isn’t actually accurate in the least. I can’t imagine a scenario under which the annulment process would have to begin again.

@Mooseberry, what you’re describing sounds like a prohibition being placed, meaning that there was a condition found in the prior attempt at marriage that, if it still existed when marriage was attempted again, would invalidate the new marriage. If it’s something that involves counseling, then very likely there was some kind of psychological issue identified in the process of granting the annulment that the tribunal is concerned would make it difficult for your wife to validly exchange consent again.

It would not be right for you to attempt an end-run by getting civilly married, which of course is marrying outside of canonical form and would not be valid. Her first marriage is invalid, but the prohibition would mean that any priest or deacon who attempted to perform another marriage for her would be in trouble, unless the prohibition were lifted first. If the condition for lifting it is that your wife submit to a psychological screening, and a report issued to the tribunal, then that’s what would have to happen first.

I think I’m reading you correctly, and surmising what it is you’ve described. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[1ke]

We’re wondering if it would be so wrong to marry civilly and get the marriage convalidated later???

Yes it would be wrong. Moreover, the priest could NOT convalidate the marriage until she did what the vetitum said to do.

You will not get around the vetitum. It is best that she seek counseling and do what the vetitum prescribes.

 

[runningdude]

This isn’t actually accurate in the least. I can’t imagine a scenario under which the annulment process would have to begin again.

Maybe not a full blown case, but they would still have to document that no other marriage attempt occurred, and then satisfy whatever condition was previously set. It would add more steps, not less.

 

[1ke]

If you are looking to avoid church bureaucracy, getting a civil marriage and asking for a “convalidation” will just restart the whole annulment process.

This is NOT correct.

A convalidation does not “restart the whole annulment process”.

 

[edward_george1]

Which is not at all the same thing.

What you’re describing is establishing freedom to marry. That does not equate to restarting the process.