Quick question about annulment/divorce

[mandajane]

My best friend, Sarah, was raised in the church. We were confirmed together, and she was a devout catholic up until just after she turned 18. She went through a very rebellious stage, and married a man from outside the church, in a ceremony through a non-catholic church. She never spoke to a priest about it.

The marriage tanked badly, and she filed for divorce. Now, about 5 years after the divorce, she’s coming back to the church. She’s worried that her previous marriage will prevent her from being married in a catholic ceremony if she ever gets married again.

What is the church’s stance on this?

Thanks so much!

 

[Dan_Daly]

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

 

[mandajane]

Thank you! I was pretty sure that was it, but I thought I’d double check.

I’ll see about taking her with me to confession on saturday.

 

[Hokomai]

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

Is it really necessary to use lanaguage like this which inevitably offends people who are not, or no longer, Catholic? Has nothing been learned since Ne Temere?

 

[Dan_Daly]

Is it really necessary to use lanaguage like this which inevitably offends people who are not, or no longer, Catholic? Has nothing been learned since Ne Temere?

I did not write in a spirit of anger or with the intent of offending anybody. It’s simply the truth. You either get married or you do not. Actually, the idea that annulment is some kind of Catholic divorce has caused a great deal of confusion and harm.

If you have sexual relations with someone there are one of two options:

1. They are your spouse.
2. They are not your spouse.

If didn’t get married to them, they are not your spouse. If at least one person is married to somebody else, you are commiting adultery. If neither is married, you are commiting fornication.

Someone may not have understood that they weren’t really married, and that could mitigate culpability. The act itself would still be either adultery or fornication though.

Using the plain truth is usually the best approach I think.

Based on the OP’s response, my words did not seem to offend her.

Pax Christi

 

[Hokomai]

I did not write in a spirit of anger or with the intent of offending anybody. It’s simply the truth. You either get married or you do not. Actually, the idea that annulment is some kind of Catholic divorce has caused a great deal of confusion and harm.

If you have sexual relations with someone there are one of two options:

1. They are your spouse.
2. They are not your spouse.

If didn’t get married to them, they are not your spouse. If at least one person is married to somebody else, you are commiting adultery. If neither is married, you are commiting fornication.

Someone may not have understood that they weren’t really married, and that could mitigate culpability. The act itself would still be either adultery or fornication though.

Using the plain truth is usually the best approach I think.

Based on the OP’s response, my words did not seem to offend her.

Pax Christi

The OP is not the only one who read your post. People who consider themselves married in general do not like to be told they are not. Would you introduce a couple to others as “Fred and his so-called wife”? Of course you would not. Why not say: “in the eyes of the Church, this is not a sacramental marriage. While we can’t judge what the couple thought, if they (or one of them) returns to the Church they need to know that the Church considers they have been having sex outside marriage. They should discuss this with their confessor”. That way, someone might listen to you. What you said is not plain truth. It uses emotionally-laden words like ‘fornication’. Plain words avoid emotion. It’s part of being plain.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The OP is not the only one who read your post. People who consider themselves married in general do not like to be told they are not. Would you introduce a couple to others as “Fred and his so-called wife”? Of course you would not. Why not say: “in the eyes of the Church, this is not a sacramental marriage. While we can’t judge what the couple thought, if they (or one of them) returns to the Church they need to know that the Church considers they have been having sex outside marriage. They should discuss this with their confessor”. That way, someone might listen to you. What you said is not plain truth. It uses emotionally-laden words like ‘fornication’. Plain words avoid emotion. It’s part of being plain.

That is an interesting philosophy, and I do agree with part of your point. How we approach people is very important.

That said, a Catholic apologetics forum is a different venue that introducing a couple at a party or at work, wouldn’t you agree?

If someone comes to the Catholic Answers forums, they are most likely looking for a Catholic answer to their question.

I’ll also note that the OP’s question, and my answer dealt specifically with a situation in which one of the people was Catholic. You mentioned non-Catholics. Non-Catholics could have a valid sacramental or natural marriage at a courthouse or in a non-Catholic place of worship without a Bishop’s dispensation. There are different situations.

If a word is chosen simply to upset someone for no good reason, that is being obnoxius and it is wrong. I agree.

However, if words are spoken in love, even ones that might sound blunt to the modern ear, the fault of the offense may lie with the listener and not the speaker.

For example, no matter what laws may be passed, I will not refer to so-called “same sex marriages” by that title or as “civil unions”. I will refer to them as what they are: state sanctioned sodomy. If someone finds that wording offensive, I’d point out that God finds the action more so.

Pax

 

[Hokomai]

For example, no matter what laws may be passed, I will not refer to so-called “same sex marriages” by that title or as “civil unions”. I will refer to them as what they are: state sanctioned sodomy. If someone finds that wording offensive, I’d point out that God finds the action more so.Pax

Well, you have a definitional problem there, but leaving that aside, your description and your assertion that you know what God thinks is likely to leave your audience unimpressed with your argument, you, and your Church.

 

[bmullins]

In the eyes of the church they very well still could be married. It just hasn’t been investigated yet. Speak to a priest about annulment. If it was in a Christian church its not as simple as ‘you aren’t married’.

 

[DJK100]

Is it really necessary to use lanaguage like this which inevitably offends people who are not, or no longer, Catholic? Has nothing been learned since Ne Temere?

It is if he is trying to express his point.

 

[DJK100]

My best friend, Sarah, was raised in the church. We were confirmed together, and she was a devout catholic up until just after she turned 18. She went through a very rebellious stage, and married a man from outside the church, in a ceremony through a non-catholic church. She never spoke to a priest about it.

The marriage tanked badly, and she filed for divorce. Now, about 5 years after the divorce, she’s coming back to the church. She’s worried that her previous marriage will prevent her from being married in a catholic ceremony if she ever gets married again.

What is the church’s stance on this?

Thanks so much!

Short answer, we can’t know all the details. The best thing for her to do is talk to a priest who can discuss it with her and tell her what to do. She may need to try and get it annulled if it truly wasn’t a valid marriage.

 

[mandajane]

Does she still need an annulment if the marriage wasn’t Catholic? I don’t know if the church she got married in does annulments.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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

I did not write in a spirit of anger or with the intent of offending anybody. It’s simply the truth. You either get married or you do not. Actually, the idea that annulment is some kind of Catholic divorce has caused a great deal of confusion and harm.

If you have sexual relations with someone there are one of two options:

1. They are your spouse.
2. They are not your spouse.

If didn’t get married to them, they are not your spouse. If at least one person is married to somebody else, you are commiting adultery. If neither is married, you are commiting fornication.

Someone may not have understood that they weren’t really married, and that could mitigate culpability. The act itself would still be either adultery or fornication though.

Using the plain truth is usually the best approach I think.

Based on the OP’s response, my words did not seem to offend her.

Pax Christi

That is an interesting philosophy, and I do agree with part of your point. How we approach people is very important.

That said, a Catholic apologetics forum is a different venue that introducing a couple at a party or at work, wouldn’t you agree?

If someone comes to the Catholic Answers forums, they are most likely looking for a Catholic answer to their question.

I’ll also note that the OP’s question, and my answer dealt specifically with a situation in which one of the people was Catholic. You mentioned non-Catholics. Non-Catholics could have a valid sacramental or natural marriage at a courthouse or in a non-Catholic place of worship without a Bishop’s dispensation. There are different situations.

If a word is chosen simply to upset someone for no good reason, that is being obnoxius and it is wrong. I agree.

However, if words are spoken in love, even ones that might sound blunt to the modern ear, the fault of the offense may lie with the listener and not the speaker.

For example, no matter what laws may be passed, I will not refer to so-called “same sex marriages” by that title or as “civil unions”. I will refer to them as what they are: state sanctioned sodomy. If someone finds that wording offensive, I’d point out that God finds the action more so.

Pax

Dan
The problem with the Harsh Words are they are not correct. She entered a Natural Marriage and she is not “free to marry” (1107) until the Bishop signs off that the “attempted natural marriage” did not form a real marriage. (1134)

 

[bmullins]

Does she still need an annulment if the marriage wasn’t Catholic? I don’t know if the church she got married in does annulments.

She only needs an annulment if she intends to remarry. I was married in a Baptist church and had to have an annulment before I could marry a catholic in the church. Even though I wasn’t Catholic and the other person wasn’t Catholic, it still has to be investigated to see if it is a valid marriage.

Being divorced is not a sin. Being divorced and remarrying is. She can come back to the church and live a life as a divorced woman without being in sin. But she can never remarry unless she gets an annulment.

She would go to the Catholic church for the annulment, not the original church she married in.

 

[1ke]

Does she still need an annulment if the marriage wasn’t Catholic? I don’t know if the church she got married in does annulments.

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.

 

[chepner3]

My experience is that she needs an annulment.

One of my daughters got married outside of the church to a Catholic. They divorced. The guy wanted to remarry in the church. He wrote us and asked us to write a letter about our daughter’s state of mind when she married him - reflecting that she didn’t consider it to be a sincerely spiritual, life-long commitment. To the best of our knowledge she didn’t go into the marriage with a true commitment and we wrote a letter supporting the annulment.

So my experience is that an annulment is needed, but they aren’t easy to get - nor is it “automatically” granted just because the couple married outside the church.

 

[Little_Mary]

Well, you have a definitional problem there, but leaving that aside, your description and your assertion that you know what God thinks is likely to leave your audience unimpressed with your argument, you, and your Church.

I saw no definition problem.

I saw no assertion that he “knows what God thinks”. He was giving the OP Church teaching.

I was very impressed with his answer.

Just because you were personally offended does not mean that there was something wrong with his post.

Furthermore, it is more than a little concieted of you to assert that he was out to offend you, or anyone else.

Good heavens!!!

 

[1ke]

My experience is that she needs an annulment.

One of my daughters got married outside of the church to a Catholic. They divorced. The guy wanted to remarry in the church. He wrote us and asked us to write a letter about our daughter’s state of mind when she married him - reflecting that she didn’t consider it to be a sincerely spiritual, life-long commitment. To the best of our knowledge she didn’t go into the marriage with a true commitment and we wrote a letter supporting the annulment.

So my experience is that an annulment is needed, but they aren’t easy to get - nor is it “automatically” granted just because the couple married outside the church.

We cannot speak to your daughter’s marriage circumstances.

We can speak to a Catholic marrying outside of Catholic form without dispensation:

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

See the following diocesan websites that explain Lack of Form cases:

archchicago.org/departments/tribunal/faq.shtm#six (see questions 4, 5, and 6)

diocese-sacramento.org/diocese/tribunal_faqs.html#23 (scroll or click on #23)

dioceseofscranton.org/about/diocesan-tribunal-test-page/lack-of-canonical-form-cases/

diometuchen.org/offices-and-ministries/the-tribunal/lack-of-form-annulment/

 

[Hokomai]

[Little Mary;8897401]

I saw no definition problem.

then you have not thought through the issue of the applicability of ‘state-sanctioned sodomy’ to same-sex women couples.

I saw no assertion that he “knows what God thinks”. He was giving the OP Church teaching.

He clearly said that God would be more offended by one thing than another.

I was very impressed with his answer.

If you use language of that sort, you will not change others’ minds either.

Just because you were personally offended does not mean that there was something wrong with his post.

I did not say I was personally offended. I predicted the responses of those he seeks to persuade.

Furthermore, it is more than a little conceited of you to assert that he was out to offend you, or anyone else.

I did not assert this. I have assumed throughout that his intention is to persuade, not offend. My comments make no sense if I, as you suggest, thought it was his intention to offend,

Good heavens!!!

Indeed.

 

[Little_Mary]

[Little Mary;8897401]

then you have not thought through the issue of the applicability of ‘state-sanctioned sodomy’ to same-sex women couples.

He clearly said that God would be more offended by one thing than another.

If you use language of that sort, you will not change others’ minds either.

I did not say I was personally offended. I predicted the responses of those he seeks to persuade.

I did not assert this. I have assumed throughout that his intention is to persuade, not offend. My comments make no sense if I, as you suggest, thought it was his intention to offend,

Indeed.

He wasn’t trying to persuade anybody,hokomai, that’s the whole point. He just answered the OP’s question. You didn’t like it, which is fine, but that doesn’t make him wrong.