Quick question about annulment/divorce

[Dan_Daly]

It would depend what you mean by “divorce”.

A legal seperation, which may even include a civil divorce may not be sinful, say if one of the spouses had to seperate as the only means of protecting children from abuse by the other spouse.

However, the spouses would still be married, even though they are not in the eyes of the state. Any sexual relations with anyone other than their spouse would be adultery and any attempted marriage to someone else would be invalid.

Pax

 

[EvelynEVF]

I’d be careful about calling divorce a mortal sin, because a)nobody knows if the marriage was valid or not, and loads of other relevant issues (like abuse) aren’t always visible and b)civil divorce in and of itself does nothing but dissolve the civil marriage. The Church basically ignores it, as far as anyone’s standing in the Church. Nobody is barred from Communion for being divorced, or asked to step down from public ministry.

The clearly sinful part would be abandonment or abuse or breaking up a family for no good reason. Divorce doesn’t do that; it jst acknowledges civilly/legally what was going on already.

I had a conversation with my priest confessor about this, to clarify whether I would be giving scandal by continuing in public ministry, when my xh has told everyone who will listen that I abandoned him.

It’s all a tragic mess, whenever divorce happens, but divorce of itself is not assumed to be sinful.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thank you for the response.

I am familiar with licit and illicit. They are not the point of an annulment. An annulment declares that a marriage is and always has been invalid, that is no marriage at all.

I am also aware that marriage existed prior to the Catholic Church. God is the author of marriage. Natural marriage existed prior to Our Lord’s institution of marriage as a sacrament.

If a Catholic attempts to get married outside of the Church without their bishop’s dispensation it is not a natural marriage. It is an invalid marriage: they did not get married.

Mortal sin does require knowledge and consent. That is why I have said from the beginning of this discussion that some one may engage in sex outside of marriage but not be culpable for mortal sin, or even any sin. However, that does make a wrong act, a right act. The grave matter of having sex outside of a valid marriage would still remain.

For example, to kill in an unjust war is an objective act of murder.

A soldier, may in all sincerity believe the war is just, even though it is unjust. Under such circumstances it would be possible that he might kill (murder) people, and not be culpable for the sin of murder.

Likewise, a couple who engages in sex outside of marriage (fornication), may not be culpable for the sin of fornication.

Pax

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thank you for the response.

I am familiar with licit and illicit. They are not the point of an annulment. An annulment declares that a marriage is and always has been invalid, that is no marriage at all.

I am also aware that marriage existed prior to the Catholic Church. God is the author of marriage. Natural marriage existed prior to Our Lord’s institution of marriage as a sacrament.

If a Catholic attempts to get married outside of the Church without their bishop’s dispensation it is not a natural marriage. It is an invalid marriage: they did not get married.

Mortal sin does require knowledge and consent. That is why I have said from the beginning of this discussion that some one may engage in sex outside of marriage but not be culpable for mortal sin, or even any sin. However, that does make a wrong act, a right act. The grave matter of having sex outside of a valid marriage would still remain.

For example, to kill in an unjust war is an objective act of murder.

A soldier, may in all sincerity believe the war is just, even though it is unjust. Under such circumstances it would be possible that he might kill (murder) people, and not be culpable for the sin of murder.

Likewise, a couple who engages in sex outside of marriage (fornication), may not be culpable for the sin of fornication.

Pax

Please explain how this person or millions in similar scenarios can apply for and be granted radical sanation.

 

[ValPal]

When speaking of Can law it is presumed that that the parties have gone through the Church. It does not speak to those who attempt a marriage outside of the Church. So the statement that the marriage is presumed valid is not true according to Can 1108

According to posts by Father David on this forum, this is false. Marriage always receives the favor of law, and is presumed valid until proven otherwise. In this case the marriage can be easily and quickly be proven invalid, but that comes after the presumption of validity. An investigation must be performed, which would include the civil marriage and divorce papers, as well as a current copy of the Baptismal certificate.

 

[1ke]

According to posts by Father David on this forum, this is false. Marriage always receives the favor of law, and is presumed valid until proven otherwise. In this case the marriage can be easily and quickly be proven invalid, but that comes after the presumption of validity. An investigation must be performed, which would include the civil marriage and divorce papers, as well as a current copy of the Baptismal certificate.

No, marriage does not “always” enjoy the favor of the law. It enjoys the favor of the law in cases of doubt (Can 1160). There is no doubt that a marriage outside the Church without dispensation or convalidation is invalid.

The investigation you refer to is performed in the United States (and possibly some other countries such as Canada). I am not sure why the US Bishops have instituted this administrative paperwork process it is not a universal practice in the Church.

There is no such investigation done in Europe at all. If there is no marriage in the sacramental register and no convalidation in the sacramental register then there is no marriage.

A civil marriage of a Catholic enjoys no assumption of validity under Canon Law because it is de facto invalid by virtue of Can 1108.

 

[ValPal]

Canon 1160 deals with simple convalidation, not marriage in general.

There is no doubt that a marriage outside the Church without dispensation or convalidation is invalid.

This is true in most cases. It is not true in all cases. You refer to Canon 1108, which includes a reference to Canon 1116. A blanket statement that a marriage outside the Church without dispensation means that all marriages performed under the circumstances of Canon 1116 are automatically assumed invalid. That is clearly false.

 

[EasterJoy]

A Catholic must either be married “in the Church” or receive a dispensation from their bishop to be married elsewhere (Protestant Church, civil ceremony, etc).

If as you described your friend is Catholic and got married outside the Church without her bishop’s dispensation, then she actually did not get married.

She should speak to her priest about getting an annulment- which is a statement that she never was married. She should also go to confession (any relations during the “marriage” would in reality be fornication), especially before receiving Communion again.

Pax Christi

That’s not right. An invalid attempt at marriage is not the moral equivalent to not getting married at all. While the friend did commit an offense against marriage by failing to observe canon law, if she entered into the marriage in good faith her marital relations were not fornication, any more than children born of the marriage would be illegitimate.

**Canon 1061.3 **An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.

**Canon 1137 **Children who are conceived or born of a valid or of a putative marriage are legitimate.

 

[EasterJoy]

Canon 1160 deals with simple convalidation, not marriage in general.

This is true in most cases. It is not true in all cases. You refer to Canon 1108, which includes a reference to Canon 1116. A blanket statement that a marriage outside the Church without dispensation means that all marriages performed under the circumstances of Canon 1116 are automatically assumed invalid. That is clearly false.

The practical point pointing out that the procedure by which the marriage would be formally found to be invalid in 1ke’s jurisdiction remains, however. (We are on an international forum, after all.) Moreover, even in the United States, the full process requiring testimony from all the parties and so on would not be required. Because defect in form is at least one of the reasons the attempt at marriage was invalid, the evidence that could be produced through legal documentation would be sufficient.

 

[ValPal]

The practical point pointing out that the procedure by which the marriage would be formally found to be invalid in 1ke’s jurisdiction remains, however. (We are on an international forum, after all.) Moreover, even in the United States, the full process requiring testimony from all the parties and so on would not be required. Because defect in form is at least one of the reasons the attempt at marriage was invalid, the evidence that could be produced through legal documentation would be sufficient.

My reference is to Canon Law, not the law of any particular country. The long and short of it is that it is possible valid marriages are not noted on the Baptismal certificate. It is rare but possible. That is why marriages must be presumed valid until proven otherwise.

I have no idea what the laws of other countries are. The Church is very, very careful on these matters, and something must be in place in these countries to “catch” these possibilities.

 

[1ke]

Canon 1160 deals with simple convalidation, not marriage in general.

Oh for heaven’s sake, that was a typo sorry. Canon 1060.

This is true in most cases. It is not true in all cases. You refer to Canon 1108, which includes a reference to Canon 1116. A blanket statement that a marriage outside the Church without dispensation means that all marriages performed under the circumstances of Canon 1116 are automatically assumed invalid. That is clearly false.

It is true in the case presented here.

Please don’t try to digress into some “stranded on a desert island” scenario which clearly isn’t the case here.

 

[ValPal]

Please don’t try to digress into some “stranded on a desert island” scenario which clearly isn’t the case here.

I’m not. I simply referenced Canon Law to demonstrate why a universal statement you made is not correct. As I’ve noted already, a priest on this forum has already addressed this issue with the same conclusion.

 

[EasterJoy]

My reference is to Canon Law, not the law of any particular country. The long and short of it is that it is possible valid marriages are not noted on the Baptismal certificate. It is rare but possible. That is why marriages must be presumed valid until proven otherwise.

I have no idea what the laws of other countries are. The Church is very, very careful on these matters, and something must be in place in these countries to “catch” these possibilities.

I don’t think 1ke’s point was that no paperwork needs to be done or that the Church in any country is not careful to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s.

Rather, I believe the point was that the process of obtaining a decree of nullity where there is a defect in form (or other obvious barrier to validity) can be expected to be much more straightforward than a case where there is no similarly obvious defect.

This is information worth noting, because sometimes Catholics who might rightly be declared free to marry before they even begin dating again shy away from seeking a decree of nullity and might later even shy away from seeking marriage in the Church, because they are afraid all annulments are costly, difficult, or both.

The OPs friend is such a case: She’s worried that her previous marriage will prevent her from being married in a catholic ceremony if she ever gets married again.

 

[mandajane]

Yes. Sarah was worried that it would be a long, drawn out, exceedingly expensive process, and bring her back to her ex’s (a really manipulative and abusive guy) attention.

Thankfully, after taking her to speak with a priest, he said that since it is a ‘breach of form’ it will be a very short process. She just fills out the paperwork, shows documentation (marriage license, divorce paperwork, police reports, etc), and sends it off. He said it shouldn’t take more than a few weeks.

I find this discussion very enlightening on the nature of marriage and annulment in the church though. Please, don’t let me interrupt.

 

[system]

A Catholic who marries outside the Catholic form without dispensation does not obtain a decree of nullity through a formal tribunal case. The marriage is invalid on its face, it’s called a Lack of Form administrative case.

In the United States people submit the paperwork (marriage and divorce decree, baptismal certificate) and it is an administrative paperwork case. It only takes a short time to complete.

The paperwork must be completed before she is free to marry. I suggest doing it sooner rather than later.

She should start the process by making an appointment with her priest.

My experience in this area indicates that this answer is very correct.

 

[1ke]

I don’t think 1ke’s point was that no paperwork needs to be done or that the Church in any country is not careful to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s.

Rather, I believe the point was that the process of obtaining a decree of nullity where there is a defect in form (or other obvious barrier to validity) can be expected to be much more straightforward than a case where there is no similarly obvious defect.

Yes, I did mean no paperwork. In Europe there is NO process when a lack of form marriage is involved. There is no marriage recorded in the sacramental register, therefore there is no marriage. There is no “administrative proces” where you have to supply the civil marriage certificate, divorce decree, and submit a form to the tribunal. That simply does not exist. If a person who has been civilly married and divorced approaches the Church for marriage, they supply their sacramental records and that is it.

Even in areas where an administrative process is required, the defect of form process is NOT a decree of nullity.

 

[1ke]

My reference is to Canon Law, not the law of any particular country. The long and short of it is that it is possible valid marriages are not noted on the Baptismal certificate. It is rare but possible. That is why marriages must be presumed valid until proven otherwise.

I have no idea what the laws of other countries are. The Church is very, very careful on these matters, and something must be in place in these countries to “catch” these possibilities.

If a couple resorted to the extraordinary form under Can 1116 it is incumbent upon them to report it to their priest for recording in the sacramental record just as it is incumbent upon a parent who performs an emergency baptism on a child to report it and have it properly recorded in the sacramental register.

The US administrative process would not “catch” such a marriage either as it would not be noted in the sacramental register. Producing a marriage license and divorce decree does nothing towards “catching” a marriage entered into under canon 1116.

The US adminsitrative process is NOT a declaration of nullity.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, I did mean no paperwork. In Europe there is NO process when a lack of form marriage is involved. There is no marriage recorded in the sacramental register, therefore there is no marriage. There is no “administrative proces” where you have to supply the civil marriage certificate, divorce decree, and submit a form to the tribunal. That simply does not exist. If a person who has been civilly married and divorced approaches the Church for marriage, they supply their sacramental records and that is it.

Even in areas where an administrative process is required, the defect of form process is NOT a decree of nullity.

If a Catholic in Europe wishes to marry a formerly-married Lutheran, is there any investigation into the marriage of the Lutheran fiance required prior to the marriage?

 

[1ke]

If a Catholic in Europe wishes to marry a formerly-married Lutheran, is there any investigation into the marriage of the Lutheran fiance required prior to the marriage?

Of course. That would be a full tribunal nullity case.

I am not talking about non Catholics.

 

[Dan_Daly]

That’s not right. An invalid attempt at marriage is not the moral equivalent to not getting married at all. While the friend did commit an offense against marriage by failing to observe canon law, if she entered into the marriage in good faith her marital relations were not fornication, any more than children born of the marriage would be illegitimate.

**Canon 1061.3 **An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.

**Canon 1137 **Children who are conceived or born of a valid or of a putative marriage are legitimate.

Is an invalid marriage a marriage?

No. It is not.

It is the equivalent to not getting married, because…they didn’t get married.

Matters of culpability are seperate from the question of whether or not a marriage existed.

Pax