H
helloWorld1
Guest
I am wondering, if I am getting divorced but the marriage was with a non-baptized person and outside of the church, is an annulment needed?
- Status
W
whatistrue
Guest
Maybe. Were you Catholic at the time of the marriage? In any case, the best answer to this question, no matter the circumstances, is “ask your priest”.
W
Wesrock
Guest
There is a lot of information we don’t have about the situation. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but a marriage is always presumed to be valid unless demonstrated otherwise. Some cases may be simpler and quicker (maybe even obvious) to review than others, but they would still need to be reviewed.
Last edited:
H
helloWorld1
Guest
I was not practicing at the time. So, if you consider ‘once Catholic always Catholic’ a true statement then yes, but I was not participating in the life of the Church at all.
W
whatistrue
Guest
I believe that the deciding factor is whether the Church considered you to be bound by Canon Law or not at the time of the marriage. But we cannot make that determination. It starts with your priest and would normally then go to the Tribunal at your Diocese who will make the determination. Even the “simple” nullity cases have to go through the process, and my understanding is that a “lack of form” case is still a case and has to follow the procedure.
Any attempts at marriage, even if they are patently invalid on their face, have to be submitted to the Church, to make a judgment upon them. “Lack of form” or “defect of form” declarations of nullity are merely administrative matters, and are pretty much a rubber-stamp process, as long as the supporting documentation is furnished. Annulments based upon subjective, psychological factors are much more difficult to obtain, and require a lot of documentation, investigation, witnesses, and so on.
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK, so: as a non-practicing but baptized Catholic, you married outside of the Church, right? Then, very likely, this is a simple “lack of form” case, which requires only a documentary process. Once the divorce is finalized, talk to your priest. You should be able to get this resolved fairly easily.
(BTW… I’m presuming that this was your first marriage, and there are no others into which you’ve attempted to enter?)
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
Either a decree of nullity OR a dissolution of the natural bond.
1
1ke
Guest
Then this may be neither a formal nullity case nor dissolution of a valid natural bond, but rather a document processes to document a Catholic invalidly attempting marriage outside the Church.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
What are you planning for the future?
If you want to marry in the Church, then the “official witness” who acts on behalf of the Church will need to be assured that you (as well as the other party) are free to marry. This assurance comes through different ways/methods/procedures, depending on the circumstances. The witness could obtain the assurance himself. He might need to depend on others to do it (and they, too, could take different routes to achieve that assurance).
You’d have to discuss all of the particulars with a local priest.
Dan
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
Technically, a “lack of form” case does not result in a “declaration of nullity” (despite a lot of diocesan tribunals/chanceries/etc., calling it that). The one who signs the paper is not making a judicial pronouncement since that person is not acting as a judge. He’s (…or She’s…) not even declaring that an attempted marriage is invalid. He’s merely stating a fact. It’s a minor detail with no practical significance out here in the pews…but what else is a canon lawyer good for, other than pointing such things out?
While I’m at it, a “defect of form” (as that phrase is commonly understood) case is a judicial process (it may be a documentary process, yes, but this is actually a judicial process). It is not an “administrative” (i.e., anyone with executive authority can do it) process.
Dan
Last edited:
This raises another question.
It is my understanding that in some locations (not in the United States) a priest at the parish level can decide that a prior attempted marriage is a “Lack of Form” case and thus the associated person is free to marry.
Does that mean that the “parish priest” has “judicial authority” in such places? Or does it just mean that this priest’s word is good enough for whoever handles judicial matters in the diocese?
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
That is how it is in most of Europe. My sister married an Austrian. He has been married before— only civilly.
It’s an investigation of freedom to marry, which the priest does for every marriage. In this case, it just means he reviews the sacramental records and the civil records: no marriage in the church = free to marry.
In the US and Canada, the diocese wants to review the packet in this case. Not sure why?
Dan will correct me if I’m wrong, but what it means is that it’s not a judicial process at all. It falls under the pastor executing his duty under canon 1066 and 1067.
Last edited:
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
The parish priest who can look at civil and ecclesiastical documents and say “your civil marriage was not a marriage in canon law” is not exercising judicial power. Since the merely civil union of a Catholic has no existence in church law, there is no judgment about that union.
He is, as all priests are to do when preparing a couple for marriage, establishing (for his own sake) their freedom to marry. He also has to ensure that he can witness the wedding (has “jurisdiction”), that the Parties are not impeded by any impediment, have proper consent, etc.
Anyway, I guess you could say that the “priest’s word is good enough.” It’s not a complicated issue, really. Just a couple more pieces of paper that have to be considered.
By the way, no parish priest, simply due to his being assigned to a parish as pastor, has judicial authority.
Dan
You’re the canon lawyer, not me. I’ll take your word for it. Thanks for the clarification.HomeschoolDad:
Technically, a “lack of form” case does not result in a “declaration of nullity” (despite a lot of diocesan tribunals/chanceries/etc., calling it that). The one who signs the paper is not making a judicial pronouncement since that person is not acting as a judge. He’s (…or She’s…) not even declaring that an attempted marriage is invalid. He’s merely stating a fact. It’s a minor detail with no practical significance out here in the pews…but what else is a canon lawyer good for, other than pointing such things out?
While I’m at it, a “defect of form” (as that phrase is commonly understood) case is a judicial process (it may be a documentary process, yes, but this is actually a judicial process). It is not an “administrative” (i.e., anyone with executive authority can do it) process.
Dan
I was just looking at it (and conflating “lack of form” with “defect of form”, a distinction I have some kind of mental block in understanding) from the point of view of “it is just a matter of establishing facts and determining that everyone is telling the truth about what happened, presenting official documents, not getting into highly subjective and rebuttable matters such as psychological immaturity, grave force or fear, and so on”. Once you determine that all of the documents are in order, and that they attest to an ipso facto invalid attempted marriage, then end of story, free to marry.
G
Gorgias
Guest
“Defect of form” means “I tried my best, but somehow managed to not do it right.” “Lack of form” means “I didn’t even try to do it right.”
- Status