Easy Annulment question

  • Thread starter Thread starter jswranch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jswranch

Guest
A permanent deacon and I are having a disagreement on requirements for an annulment.

Here is the debated prompt:
  1. The church will not move forward with an annulment request until after one of the “spouses” have remarried civilly, outside of the church.
One of us says yes, one of the spouses getting civilly remarried outside of the church is required to prove there is no hope for reconciliation, before the church will consider a declaration of nullity.

The other one of us says no, a civil divorce is required before the church will move forward with a investigation: a subsequent civil remarriage by one of the spouses is not a factor in deciding when the church will begin the annulment process.

Bonus: cite your source.

Pax
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify, one is stating that one of the parties must be in mortal sin for the Church to move forward?
 
That one is easy-peasy. Absolutely not a requirement that one party has remarried – in fact, that shouldn’t happen prior to a declaration of nullity.
 
jswranch said:
The church will not move forward with an annulment request until after one of the “spouses” have remarried civilly, outside of the church.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The Church actually does not want folks to marry civilly prior to starting the annulment process. It actually places them both in a state of grave matter, if not mortal sin. The Church never wants anyone in mortal sin.
jswranch said:
The other one of us says no, a civil divorce is required before the church will move forward with a investigation: a subsequent civil remarriage by one of the spouses is not a factor in deciding when the church will begin the annulment process.
Click to expand...
Correct
 
Thank you for trying to help. To clarify, the status of sin is inconsequential in this analysis.
 
Well, this is more about proving the negative. There is absolutely zero mention of remarriage as a requirement anywhere in canon law. The person claiming that it’s the case needs to come up with something that says so.
 
Last edited:
jswranch said:
The church will not move forward with an annulment request until after one of the “spouses” have remarried civilly, outside of the church.
Click to expand...
This is completely incorrect.

Moreover, it is grave matter against the sixth commandment to “remarry” without a decree of nullity. And, it is grave matter against the precepts of the Church to marry outside the laws of the Church.
jswranch said:
a subsequent civil remarriage by one of the spouses is not a factor in deciding when the church will begin the annulment process.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, this isn’t actually true. Canon law does not specify a civil divorce is required first. The tribunals in the US operate this way.

All that canon law says is:

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.
jswranch said:
a civil divorce is required before the church will move forward with a investigation
Click to expand...
A person need not ever remarry in order to have their marriage investigated. Determination of freedom to marry is a canonical right, even when single with no intent to marry again.
 
Last edited:
jswranch said:
Bonus: cite your source.
Click to expand...
The person asserting that civil remarriage outside the Church is required must cite THEIR source.

Canon law does not require this anywhere. It’s rather difficult to cite a law that does not exist.

Here are the laws that DO exist regarding who may bring a case and when a case may be accepted:

THE COMPETENT FORUM

Can. 1671 Marriage cases of the baptized belong to the ecclesiastical judge by proper right.

Can. 1672 Cases concerning the merely civil effects of marriage belong to the civil magistrate unless particular law establishes that an ecclesiastical judge can investigate and decide these cases if they are done in an incidental or accessory manner.

Can. 1673 In cases concerning the nullity of marriage which are not reserved to the Apostolic See, the following are competent:

1/ the tribunal of the place in which the marriage was celebrated;

2/ the tribunal of the place in which the respondent has a domicile or quasi-domicile;

3/ the tribunal of the place in which the petitioner has a domicile, provided that both parties live in the territory of the same conference of bishops and the judicial vicar of the domicile of the respondent gives consent after he has heard the respondent;

4/ the tribunal of the place in which in fact most of the proofs must be collected, provided that consent is given by the judicial vicar of the domicile of the respondent, who is first to ask if the respondent has any exception to make.

THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE A MARRIAGE

Can. 1674 The following are qualified to challenge a marriage:

1/ the spouses;

2/ the promoter of justice when nullity has already become public, if the convalidation of the marriage is not possible or expedient.

Can. 1675 §1. A marriage which was not accused while both spouses were living cannot be accused after the death of either one or both of the spouses unless the question of validity is prejudicial to the resolution of another controversy either in the canonical forum or in the civil forum.

§2. If a spouse dies while the case is pending, however, ⇒ can. 1518 is to be observed.

THE DUTY OF THE JUDGES

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.
 
jswranch said:
To clarify, the status of sin is inconsequential in this analysis.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t inconsequential.

The very assertion that a person must remarry civilly outside of the Church in order to petition the Church involves grave matter against the sixth commandment, a precept of the Church, and a requirement to actually violate Canon Law on marriage which is itself grave matter and self-contradictory.

SO, yes, sin is involved here.

Can. 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.

Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly.

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

Can. 1114 The person assisting at marriage acts illicitly unless the person has made certain of the free status of the contracting parties according to the norm of law and, if possible, of the permission of the pastor whenever the person assists in virtue of general delegation.

Can. 1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.
 
Last edited:
You changed your first post since I replied. While, as 1Ke mentioned, divorce is not required for annulment canonically, it is required in the U.S. So if you are talking about a case being investigated by a U.S. tribunal, then yes, civil divorce has to have occurred.

My original reply was to the wording in your original post – remarriage does not need to have occurred, nor should it have.
 
Last edited:
I have heard that in some countries it is easier to get an annulment than a civil divorce.
 
jswranch said:
One of us says yes, one of the spouses getting civilly remarried outside of the church is required to prove there is no hope for reconciliation, before the church will consider a declaration of nullity.
Click to expand...
The one of you arguing this is incorrect. I am aware of several cases where a civilly divorced couple had their marriage vows investigated and declared null, preemptively freeing them to pursue future relationships.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top