Protestants and annulments

[Asinner]

Then they are seriously being led astray by their pastors as most people I know see it as very normal to remarry.

Yes, they absolutely are being led astray. That’s what happens when heresy is taught. Protestantism is a heresy that’s spread for 500 years now, accumulating all kinds of evils like a snowball rolling down a hill. There was divorce and remarriage, then birth control, then abortion, and now gay marriage.

 

[Ammi]

And unless we wear rose colored glasses, we should be humble enough to admit that we too have been affected by all this pressure. Defect of Consent (which has it’s just place) has been the tool which the devil has penetrated.

 

[1ke]

Why then, is there a requirement that a Catholic couple be civilly divorced prior to the beginning of a tribunal’s evaluation of a marriage’s validity? In a way, that feels like ‘acceptance’ of another process.

We’ve been over this as nauseam in other threads. It’s required in the US because clergy are civil and church officiants, and a person cannot seek marriage in the church without also seeking marriage in the state. The Church has always recognized the state’s interest in marriage and their right to regulate it.

Secondly, the tribunal process does not begin until there is evidence the marriage is irreparably broken down, which divorce is one substantial indicator of.

Ironically, a married and subsequently civilly divorced couple that then re-marries one another seems to have this flexibility in a way that a once married couple does not…

Because a civil divorce does not dissolve their marriage. They are still married as far as the Church is concerned.

 

[Ammi]

It’s required in the US because clergy are civil and church officiants, and a person cannot seek marriage in the church without also seeking marriage in the state.

This is a federal law???

I’m not sure who is asserting this. The United States, the Church, you???

 

[JulianN]

This is a federal law???

I’m not sure who is asserting this. The United States, the Church, you???

Oh for heaven’s sake.

Canon 1071.

 

[Ammi]

First, I’m not sure how 1071 requires a Catholic marriage to seek State marriage.

Second, that’s answering the question, “why do we need to divorce in State before discerning validity of a Catholic marriage?”

With

“Because the Church says you have to.”

When the State doesnt even care.

 

[JulianN]

The Church requires you to do both, because the Church recognizes that the state has a legitimate interest in marriage. You cannot marry in the U.S. in a Catholic Church without simultaneously marrying in the state. Catholic priests act as civil officiants to marriages in the U.S. In countries where they do not, you marry civilly prior to the Church wedding (usually the day before at the courthouse). A dispensation from this by a bishop would be exceedingly rare and would have to be for grave cause.

 

[Ammi]

The United States is separation of Church and State. We arent Martin Luther.

So it’s totally the Church’s own law to require divorce before seeking validity. No other influence.

Btw, I dont think a Christian should not observe and register their marriage with the State, I’m just wondering why the Church (especially in the U.S.) acts like we need to divorce before investigating validity. The State doesnt care.

 

[Fauken]

The United States is separation of Church and State. We arent Martin Luther.

And yet the United States does not permit polygamy, marriages with minors, marriages between immediate family, marrying yourself, marriages with animals/inanimate objects/fictional characters/etc. All of which the state would be looking at before issuing a marriage certificate.

 

[JulianN]

The United States is separation of Church and State. We arent Martin Luther.

So it’s totally the Church’s own law to require divorce before seeking validity. No other influence.

Btw, I dont think a Christian should not observe and register their marriage with the State, I’m just wondering why the Church (especia

Because the Church cares. There is both a religious and civil component to marriage. The Church requires that the civil component be dissolved prior to investigating the religious validity of the marriage. Among other things, it’s an indication that the marriage has irretrievably broken.

This has nothing to do with whether the state cares. It has everything to do with what the Church (whose authority you say you respect) requires.

 

[Ammi]

Validity does not depend on whether or not some people think a marriage is “irretrievably broken”.

 

[JulianN]

No one said it did. But what would be the point in examining the validity of a marriage where the couple was staying together?

 

[Ammi]

The point of investigating validity, should determine whether or not to file civil divorce, or remain separated with the bond remaining.

 

[JulianN]

The point of investigating validity, should determine whether or not to file civil divorce, or remain separated with the bond remaining.

Well, that’s your opinion. It’s not the opinion of the Church.

 

[Ammi]

That’s debatable. The Church calls divorce a sin, except only for reasons of protection of harm. She never encourages divorce, otherwise.

 

[JulianN]

That’s debatable. The Church calls divorce a sin, except only for reasons of protection of harm. She never encourages divorce, otherwise.

Requiring that the parties be divorced prior to investigating validity is not “encouraging” divorce. Where are you getting that impression?

 

[1ke]

In the US clergy are both civil and religious officiants. It’s against the law for them to perform marriages without a marriage license and they must complete and return the license to the clerk as per the law of their state.

In other countries it is against the law for them to perform marriages before a civil marriage has been completed.

The Church also requires that marriages be in accord with civil law (Canon 1071.2).

 

[Ammi]

Yes, I respect Church Teaching very much. I love the Church, and am decidedly striving to grow in Jesus and His Church until I die.

Also, I am keeping relations with my pastor and the tribunal defender of the bond.

 

[JulianN]

Great. Then you respect that the Church requires a civil divorce prior to issuing a decree of nullity.
And perhaps you could apply this same humility you advocate in this post to admitting that perhaps you are misunderstanding defect of consent – rather than assuming your lack of understanding means the devil is involved.

And unless we wear rose colored glasses, we should be humble enough to admit that we too have been affected by all this pressure. Defect of Consent (which has it’s just place) has been the tool which the devil has penetrated.

 

[Ammi]

No, it’s not healthy to pretend abuse doesn’t, or never exists.

Yes, i respect that its a rule, so far as I wont break it (not that it’s something I could break, but if I could). But I also see it as a man made rule that has pros and cons. And the cons are showing to outweigh the pros.