Pls Help. Need info on annulment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trevorc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Trevorc

Guest
Hello, i am a Baptized Christian (Roman Catholic), wish to marry (first marriage) a divorcee who is a protestant, she is 32 however younger to me by months, she was married(civil marriage, no church ceremony) at the age of 20, to a person by faith a Hindu, the marraige was against her parents will, non of her family members were present during her wedding, at the time she was married she was a Hindu, her marriage lasted for barely 6months and she had filed for a divorce, the reason being, she was verbally and phyisically abused by her ex-spouse. After couple of years being divorced she decided to follow christianity, at present she is a protestant. Now wish to marry in a roman catholic church, would she require an annulment, its been over 10 years she is not in contact with his ex spouse since the time of her divorce. How likely is it for her to be granted an annulment. I really wish to marry her in the church. Any advice or suggestions would be much appriciated. Thank you.
P.S: no childerns from the past marriage.
 
Yes, she would require a declaration of nullity as it was a natural marriage - between two unbaptized persons. My advice would be to speak with your pastor and get the ball rolling with the diocesan tribunal.
 
You might also be able to ask about Pauline privilege. As the parties were unbaptized, they were in a natural marriage, and natural marriages can be dissolved in favor of sacramental marriages. I am unsure how much it is used when one party is a Protestant, but it would also be a possibility.
 
How I wish the canon law was more lenient towards non catholics seeking annulment.

DarkLight, there are 3 criteria’s that needs to be full filled for Pauline Privilege.

There are a number of criteria, all of which must be present, for this privilege to apply.
Firstly, the Pauline Privilege is only relevant if one of the spouses becomes a Christian and the other does not. In other words, if both spouses are baptized after their marriage, and they then want to separate and remarry, they cannot do so under canon 1143.

Secondly, the privilege can be applied if the unbaptized spouse is either unwilling to continue living with the newly baptized spouse, or if the unbaptized spouse is not willing to do so without “offense to the Creator.” In other words, if the unbaptized spouse is so antagonistic toward the Christian faith of the newly baptized husband or wife that they cannot live together in peace, this constitutes “departing” for the purposes of canon 1143.

(Note that the Pauline Privilege cannot be used if it is the baptized spouse who “departs.” So long as the unbaptized spouse is willing to remain in the marriage, and is not hostile to the Christian faith of the other spouse, the marriage cannot be dissolved other than by death, as per canon 1141.)

Thirdly, the newly baptized spouse must want to enter into a new marriage. Unless and until this happens, he/she remains married to the unbaptized spouse.
(The information above have been extracted from the website canonlawmadeeasy.)

With that being said, as per my understanding she totally fullfills the 1st and 3rd criteria, however, i am a little unsure about the 2nd criteria though, it was only after her divorce when she started to follow christianity and turned a protestant(how favourable will the 2nd criteria be in her case), Anyone, any feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you.
 
It’s not uncommon from what I’ve seen for the privilege to be used when one party is baptized after a divorce. The greater difficulty I would foresee is that Pauline privilege is typically applied to two Catholics marrying. You will require a dispensation to marry a non-Catholic. But for further information I would consult your priest.
 
If she was physically and mentally abused that’s grounds for an annulment, right?
 
CoffeeAndDonuts said:
If she was physically and mentally abused that’s grounds for an annulment, right?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Post nuptial abuse does not have a direct bearing on the validity of consent at the time of marriage. At best it is an indication of a defect of consistent, but it would have to be proven that the defect existed at the time that vows were exchanged. Abuse in of itself does not invalidate a marriage.
 
How could that be proved then? Is an abuser not defective, regardless of when the defect becomes apparent?
 
Mary_Ellen said:
My advice would be to speak with your pastor
Click to expand...
Dear OP…This first. Even though most of us are well meaning, only some can speak with clear authority on these matters. Plus, website posting is ineffective in complete communications and key details and facts might be missed.

You need counseling as well as information. And the counseling needs to come from someone in the Church, not from us members of CAF.

Good Luck!
 
Last edited:
Please speak to your local dioesan tribunal. Go to your diocesan website and get their contact information. In cases like this, well meaning people who aren’t rigorously trained in canon law (even pastors) can stumble in giving advice. Get it straight from a canonist or a Tribunal official. God bless you!
 
TheLittleLady said:
Speak to someone in your Diocese Office of the Tribunal.
Click to expand...
SerraSemper said:
Please speak to your local dioesan tribunal. Go to your diocesan website and get their contact information. In cases like this, well meaning people who aren’t rigorously trained in canon law (even pastors) can stumble in giving advice. Get it straight from a canonist or a Tribunal official. God bless you!
Click to expand...
The first place to start is with his priest. They will need an advocate and that advocate should come from the parish. If they feel they aren’t getting timely or good advice then move to the Tribunal.

All priests and deacons are trained to deal with marriage cases. Give them some credit.
 
CoffeeAndDonuts said:
40.png
CoffeeAndDonuts:
How could that be proved then? Is an abuser not defective, regardless of when the defect becomes apparent?
Click to expand...
If she was physically and mentally abused that’s grounds for an annulment, right?
Click to expand...
The tribunal will look at information up to and including the wedding day. Contrary to what many believe about annulments, it is looking at the ability to consent to the marriage. Did both parties have the ability to FREELY consent to the marriage.

At times behavior after the marriage can be used as evidence for the grounds of annulments, by itself can not be used as grounds.
 
Horton said:
The first place to start is with his priest. They will need an advocate and that advocate should come from the parish. If they feel they aren’t getting timely or good advice then move to the Tribunal.

All priests and deacons are trained to deal with marriage cases. Give them some credit.
Click to expand...
As a practicing canon lawyer who also happened to be a judge for a few years at some Tribunals I would like to point out the following:
  1. The first place many Americans start off with is the parish priest. Most people from other countries go to a canon lawyer. This is for a lot of reasons, but priests and deacons everywhere are usually given only 1-2 courses in canon law in seminary and maybe a crash course (in the USA) in submitting marriage cases to the Tribunal. Canon lawyers get 3 years of canon law for the JCL. This means that in an average case, clergy will be able to handle things fairly well in terms of helping with the initial paperwork and/or general advice. This also means that when things are more unusual, clergy can make mistakes. Those mistakes can lose the case. I have seen that happen. We are not even talking about clergy who are opposed to annulments (or to dissolutions via Pauline/Petrine Privilege). Such priests leave cases on their desk for years unsubmitted to the Tribunals, give bad advice, or excessively discourage people from exercising their right to know the truth about their marital status. I have seen all of these things happen.
  1. Most “advocates” are not actually legally “advocates” in the canon law system; often they are simply people deputized to fill in paperwork for the beginning of the case and to receive paperwork. A licensed advocate (e.g. A canon lawyer) actually acts as an attorney and submits proposed interrogations for witnesses and files briefs on behalf of the party. A “parish” advocate - and not all dioceses in the USA have such - usually does not have the law degree (JCL/JCD/JUD) required for acting as a real attorney nor enjoys the indult rarely given by the Vatican to act as a real advocate (read: attorney).
Usually, parish “advocates” act more like volunteer tax preparers do - they help people with the paperwork but do not necessarily have any certifications in tax preparation or are CPAs. You wouldn’t go to a volunteer tax preparer without credentials if you are audited by the IRS to defend your case, and similiarly, a parish “advocate” cannot assist you in the actual arguing of a case… just with filling out the initial forms. One should never refuse a real advocate (often this is a matter of checking the right box) because a parish advocate is not the same thing. That being said, most parish “advocates” are more trained than clergy and will be a lot more familiar with the practicalities than the average clergy simply because that’s what they deal with whereas clergy are generalists. Also, not all dioceses in the USA (forget about the rest of the world, they don’t usually exist) have the so called parish advocates. Again, these are volunteers who help out with submitting the initial paperwork and receive paperwork.
 
Last edited:
It is still my opinion the parish priest should be the first person one talks to regarding a marriage case. I am a trained volunteer advocate. The fact I don’t get paid for this does not make me less diligent in my efforts.

While you seem to have a low opinion of our clergy, I don’t. In my mind one should keep a good opinion of all clergy until/unless they prove otherwise.
 
Horton said:
It is still my opinion the parish priest should be the first person one talks to regarding a marriage case. I am a trained volunteer advocate. The fact I don’t get paid for this does not make me less diligent in my efforts.

While you seem to have a low opinion of our clergy, I don’t. In my mind one should keep a good opinion of all clergy until/unless they prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
And I am a degreed canonist who has practiced in many different states. Just because you like your local priests does NOT guarantee that a parish priest will necessarily be a reliable source of information on the subject. It’s not that I have a low opinion of clergy; I merely happen to know the limits of their seminarian education (after all, as a canon lawyer I have the academic credentials to TEACH seminarians canon law!) and have fielded tons of questions from clergy. A person has the right to talk to anyone about an annulment but should exercise prudence in whom he takes advice from. A priest, unless he possesses advanced degrees, is a jack of all trades when it comes to ministry. His seminary education is broad and seminaries offer only basic introductions to canon law and marriage law. Many priests forget details that others who work with marriage cases day in and day out are familiar with. For example, there’s a great chance the OP may wind up getting a dissolution rather than a declaration of nullity. I know plenty of priests who would hear the words “non baptized” and think the marriage “doesn’t count”. Sure, if a person feels more comfortable talking with a priest, then they should approach a priest. But they should not necessarily rely solely on the priest’s words but can get a “second opinion” from someone who is actually better trained in the field.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top