I have a question on anullmment

[wisdomseeker]

it came as a surprise to me when the priest told me that even though a person is not married in the CC and it is divorced, it still needs to be anulled by the Church.

another priest told me that if a marriage is not done in the CC, the marriage is not considered valid. according to him the marriage never took place.

which is it?

thanks everyone.

 

[Cristiano]

it came as a surprise to me when the priest told me that even though a person is not married in the CC and it is divorced, it still needs to be anulled by the Church.

another priest told me that if a marriage is not done in the CC, the marriage is not considered valid. according to him the marriage never took place.

which is it?

thanks everyone.

Both! The Church has an obligation to investigate before declaring a marriage not valid. The annulment is not something extra that is granted, but it is simply a recognition of something that was not valid to begin with.

Think of it as needing to provide your birth certificate in order to get your passport. That does not suddenly changes you into a citizen, but the investigation is necessary to determine your status.

 

[puzzleannie]

it came as a surprise to me when the priest told me that even though a person is not married in the CC and it is divorced, it still needs to be anulled by the Church.

another priest told me that if a marriage is not done in the CC, the marriage is not considered valid. according to him the marriage never took place.

which is it?

thanks everyone.

neither of these priests is giving an accurate answer to a specific situation unless they know all the details of that couple’s situation. Either answer could be true, depending on circs. The only way those details can be established is through investigation if the circumstances surrounding the original marriage. The couple should see their own priest, give him details of their own personal situation, and go from there. A general question on annulments will get a general answer, and is about as useful as a general Q&A posed on a website about your own personal health or finances or legal situation. There may be some nuggets of truth, but very little help for your personal problem.

bottom line, the Catholic Church assumes a marriage is valid until proven otherwise. sometimes it is easy to prove–a Catholic did not follow Catholic law when they got married. Sometimes it is harder. That is why there is a legal process involved.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Thanks to both of you.

i guess the Church must determine if the marriage was valid or not. although was not in the Church it could still be valid. i gotta it.

 

[Seatuck]

Thanks to both of you.

i guess the Church must determine if the marriage was valid or not. although was not in the Church it could still be valid. i gotta it.

Right all marriages are considered valid until investigated. There are multiple factors that play a role in validity.

 

[mswood]

Here is what I have learned from my own annulment experience.

The church assumes all marriages are valid, they can be investigated by the church (the Tribunal) and sometimes found to not be valid.

As for marrying in or out of the church making the marriage valid or not really depends on the people in the marriage. If one or both spouses are Catholic at the time of marriage and they married outside of the church without proper permission from the bishop, then this is marriage would quickly be found invalid by a tribunal for lack of form. If neither spouse was Catholic at the time of marriage then it does not matter where the marriage occured, it is a valid marriage unless the tribunal declares otherwise after you apply to have the marriage investigated…

 

[1ke]

it came as a surprise to me when the priest told me that even though a person is not married in the CC and it is divorced, it still needs to be anulled by the Church.

another priest told me that if a marriage is not done in the CC, the marriage is not considered valid. according to him the marriage never took place.

which is it? thanks everyone.

The ambiguity here is whether or not the the priest(s) is talking about a *Catholic *or not.

The first statement is true if the priest was referring to two **non-Catholics **marrying in their own church or before a judge. They are under no obligation to marry in the Catholic form. But, the impediment of a prior bond would indeed require an investigation of nullity should such a person divorce and then wish to marry a Catholic. They are presumed to be validly married until proven otherwise.

The second statement is true if the priest was referring to a *Catholic *who married outside the Church without permission to do so. Catholics are bound by the Catholic form of marriagem therefore if they married outside the Church they could easily provide the proof and would then be free to contract a valid marriage in the Church.

So, both statements might be true, depending upon what-- specifically-- the priest was talking about.

 

[tinalewis]

If neither spouse was Catholic at the time of marriage then it does not matter where the marriage occured, it is a valid marriage unless the tribunal declares otherwise after you apply to have the marriage investigated…

Not true in my case. My husband and I weren’t Catholic when we were lawfully married in the UCC by a UCC minister, but it wasn’t considered a valid marriage by the Catholic Church. We couldn’t enter the church until my husband’s first marriage was reviewed by the Tribunal.

 

[Phemie]

Not true in my case. My husband and I weren’t Catholic when we were lawfully married in the UCC by a UCC minister, but it wasn’t considered a valid marriage by the Catholic Church. We couldn’t enter the church until my husband’s first marriage was reviewed by the Tribunal.

That’s why the statement should have been “If neither spouse was Catholic (or Orthodox) at the time of the wedding , it doesn’t matter where the marriage takes place, it’s considered valid unless there was an impediment to the marriage.”

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Not true in my case. My husband and I weren’t Catholic when we were lawfully married in the UCC by a UCC minister, but it wasn’t considered a valid marriage by the Catholic Church. We couldn’t enter the church until my husband’s first marriage was reviewed by the Tribunal.

Well, that’s because his first marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise and thus the Church would not recognize his marriage to you until the 1st one was proven invalid.

 

[Chatter163]

Not true in my case. My husband and I weren’t Catholic when we were lawfully married in the UCC by a UCC minister, but it wasn’t considered a valid marriage by the Catholic Church. We couldn’t enter the church until my husband’s first marriage was reviewed by the Tribunal.

It WAS considered a valid marriage, until the tribunal determined otherwise. That is why the marriage had to be reviewed before you were received into the Church. Without that declaration of nullity, you would still have been considered married to the first spouse.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

it came as a surprise to me when the priest told me that even though a person is not married in the CC and it is divorced, it still needs to be anulled by the Church.

another priest told me that if a marriage is not done in the CC, the marriage is not considered valid. according to him the marriage never took place.

which is it?

thanks everyone.

Both would include a person who wants to join into full union with the Catholic Church, or a person who already is Catholic.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Here is what I have learned from my own annulment experience.

The church assumes all marriages are valid, they can be investigated by the church (the Tribunal) and sometimes found to not be valid.

As for marrying in or out of the church making the marriage valid or not really depends on the people in the marriage. If one or both spouses are Catholic at the time of marriage and they married outside of the church without proper permission from the bishop, then this is marriage would quickly be found invalid by a tribunal for lack of form. If neither spouse was Catholic at the time of marriage then it does not matter where the marriage occured, it is a valid marriage unless the tribunal declares otherwise after you apply to have the marriage investigated…

this is what happened. the wife Catholic,the husband a pagan. marriage outside the Church. the husband became Catholic 20 yrs after the divorce. so i guess the marriage would be considered invalid without any problem. maybe?

thnk you.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Thank you guys. you were very helpfull. blessings to all.

"Without truth, charity ends up in sentimentalism. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled arbitrarily. It is the fatal risk of love in a culture without truth. It falls prey to the emotions and contingent opinions of the individuals, an abused and distorted word, to the point of signifying the contrary." BXVI

 

[Phemie]

this is what happened. the wife Catholic,the husband a pagan. marriage outside the Church. the husband became Catholic 20 yrs after the divorce. so i guess the marriage would be considered invalid without any problem. maybe?

thnk you.

If the Catholic hadn’t obtained a dispensation to marry a non-baptized (which I assume is what you meant by ‘a pagan’) and a dispensation to marry somewhere other than the Catholic Church, then yes, the marriage is invalid.

OTOH, if she did obtain a dispensation for both these things then the marriage would be considered valid unless proven otherwise.

 

[wisdomseeker]

If the Catholic hadn’t obtained a dispensation to marry a non-baptized (which I assume is what you meant by ‘a pagan’) and a dispensation to marry somewhere other than the Catholic Church, then yes, the marriage is invalid.

OTOH, if she did obtain a dispensation for both these things then the marriage would be considered valid unless proven otherwise.

i believe that is what happened. i dont think there was any dispensation.

thanks.

 

[EasterJoy]

it came as a surprise to me when the priest told me that even though a person is not married in the CC and it is divorced, it still needs to be anulled by the Church.

another priest told me that if a marriage is not done in the CC, the marriage is not considered valid. according to him the marriage never took place.

which is it?

thanks everyone.

Well, they’re both right. One is talking about how the Church establishes that one is free to marry after having attempted marriage in the past, while the other is talking about what it means for a marriage to be null.

When it comes to establishing the freedom to marry of a person who has previously attempted marriage, there aren’t invalid marriages that need to be declared null before the persons attempting them are declared to be free to marry in the eyes of the Church and invalid marriages that don’t need this. There are invalid marriages for which nullity can only be established by a tribunal, sometimes requiring witnesses to establish the facts, and invalid marriages for which a defect in form makes the fact of nullity a much more straightforward thing to demonstrate.

A marriage is valid until declared otherwise by the Church, just as suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It doesn’t mean that suspects are in fact innocent until proven guilty or that those never tried must not be guilty, only that suspects enjoy that presumption. Likewise with invalid marriages: they aren’t valid one day and invalid the next. They’re either valid from the start or invalid from the start, even though there are certain kinds of invalidity that are clear from first principles and others that only show themselves clearly later.

The Church will not investigate a marriage until the marriage is dissolved in the eyes of the state, whether by annulment or divorce. A person who is married in the eyes of the state is not free to marry as far as the Church is concerned, anyway, and so the Church wisely avoids commiting alienation of affection by intervening any earlier. Until such a time, an attempted marriage enjoys the presumption of validity, even if its invalidity is as plain as the nose on anyone’s face. Again, it is like the suspect accused of a crime. He may have been caught red-handed, but he is still entitled to his day in court.

 

[Phemie]

Until such a time, an attempted marriage enjoys the presumption of validity, even if its invalidity is as plain as the nose on anyone’s face. Again, it is like the suspect accused of a crime. He may have been caught red-handed, but he is still entitled to his day in court.

Actually, the marriage of a Catholic outside the Church without a dispensation doesn’t enjoy the presumption of validity. A canon lawyer made that clear on these boards a while ago.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Thanks guys.

i guess no matter what papers must be filed.

blessings

 

[mswood]

Not true in my case. My husband and I weren’t Catholic when we were lawfully married in the UCC by a UCC minister, but it wasn’t considered a valid marriage by the Catholic Church. We couldn’t enter the church until my husband’s first marriage was reviewed by the Tribunal.

The problem wasn’t that you married outside of the Catholic Church, the problem is that your husbands first marriage was still considered valid in the eyes of the church and that marriage had to be proved to be invalid before you could be in a valid marriage with him (in the eyes of the church).