Quick question about annulment/divorce

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

If she married outside the Church she is of course legally married and I presume has a civil divorce.

As a Catholic though she is held by the precepts of the Church, one of which is to marry in the Church.

If she didn’t, the priest will probably ask her to file paperwork related to what is called a ‘defect of form.’ This is much less complicated than an annulment (decree of nullity).

A decree of nullity would be a judgment that while there was a ‘civil’ marriage, either one or both spouses were, for some reason, unable to freely consent to the marriage. This could be for one of many reasons. They might have THOUGHT they had both a valid and sacramental marriage in the Church, but for some reason they did not. However, the ‘civil’ marriage remains and thus there was a ‘real’ marriage, but not a sacramental one.

But in a defect of form, the reason to file that is to show that the person did not marry in the Church. Therefore there was a ‘civil’ marriage but there was never a valid sacramental marriage from the get go, and the proof was that the marriage was not made in the Church. This is the reason that if the paperwork goes though, the person will in all probability be told that she is ‘free to marry’ (and of course with the presumption that this time around she will marry properly 'in the Church.")

But it in no way states that the marriage itself wasn’t ‘real’. There was a valid civil marriage. If the woman had had children, those children would be considered legitmate.

I am glad she is coming ‘back to’ the Church.

 

[Richard320]

All marriages are presumed valid until proven otherwise. It does sound like a rubber-stamp lack of form annulment, but note that it* does *require a decree of nullity. If it were instantly and unmistakably recognizable as a phony marriage, no decree would be needed.

So…since it is presumed valid, and the Church has not ruled otherwise yet, there is no need to confess to fornication. Sex with one’s spouse is not fornication.

She probably has plenty of other things to confess after being gone that long, fornication is not one of them.

 

[joanofarc2008]

1ke - Thank you for being the voice of reason.

Others please be nice in the way you put things.

Also there is not such things as a quick question about annulment/divorce on CAF.

 

[Dan_Daly]

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)

I believe you have incorrectly understood what I wrote. I have never said the woman was free to marry. Rather, I advised her to seek an annulment. She is not free to marry, but she is not married either. A Catholic needs to be married in the Church or have their bishops dispensation for validity.

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

However, the ‘civil’ marriage remains and thus there was a ‘real’ marriage, but not a sacramental one.

This is incorrect, and helps explain why I think sometimes trying to be “nice” with our language ends up doing more harm than good.

It all depends on what you mean by a “real” marriage. If as you say, the marriage was real, and one of the partners become free to marry again (with an annulment), then marriage is not in fact indissoluable. That would be heresy.

A sacramental marriage is indissoluable. Period. Until somebody dies (as a priest I know says, “preferably of natural causes” ).

A natural marriage may only be dissolved by the the Petrine Privilege, which is reserved exclusively to the Pope.

There are sacramental marriages and natural marriages. There may be civil arrangements which the state terms “marriage” but unless they coincide with a sacramental or natural marriage, they are not in fact a “real” marriage.

So if we tell someone who was not validly married, that they were “really” married, we may be well intentioned but we also are teaching them erroroneously about the true nature of marriage.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

All marriages are presumed valid until proven otherwise. It does sound like a rubber-stamp lack of form annulment, but note that it* does *require a decree of nullity. If it were instantly and unmistakably recognizable as a phony marriage, no decree would be needed.

So…since it is presumed valid, and the Church has not ruled otherwise yet, there is no need to confess to fornication. Sex with one’s spouse is not fornication.

She probably has plenty of other things to confess after being gone that long, fornication is not one of them.

In order for someon to be your spouse you have to be married to them. As I and others have pointed out, if the information given is correct:

A) At least one party was Catholic

and

B) They were married outside the Church without their bishop’s dispensation.

Then they were not validly married, which means they were not married.

Are you allowed to have sex with someone who you are not married to? No you are not, under the 6th commandment.

As I’ve said, they may have been unaware of the invalidity of the marriage, and culpability may be mitigated, but an act can be wrong regardless of the culpability.

Say, you had a Catholic friend who married outside the church but was ignorant of the requirement to marry inside the Church for validity. They later read the Catechism and come to understand that their marriage is not valid. There is no official declaration of nullity at this point, but based on simply knowing what the requirements are, it is clear the marriage is not valid. Would you counsel the person that they could continue marital relations because the marriage is presumed valid, even though it clearly is not? I would not. I’d counsel celibacy until such a time that they were validly married, because as I pointed out, sex with someone you are not married to is wrong.

Pax

 

[mamaslo]

So if we tell someone who was not validly married, that they were “really” married, we may be well intentioned but we also are teaching them erroroneously about the true nature of marriage.

Pax Christi

Dan Daly,
Thank you for this. I am tired of this battle in my own life. Dealing with people who say I am married when in fact there is only a state license and nearly two decades of living together with two children. I sleep on the couch waiting for a change of heart in him, myself and finally the outcome of the armtwisted annulment application.

It is painful to talk to people and I really do not like to discuss “my husband” at this point. He may end up truly being that in the end, but for now, it is better. He is being nicer after a frank discussion with a good friend and brother about my perspective he refused to see for over a decade and I do not know if he really does see it, but was told his tactics were not getting him any where with the friendship that is needed to proceed to finalize anything if an annulment of his first marriage came to fruition.

If more would respect the church’s view instead of just having compassion on the difficult situation (maybe combine the truth and the compassion) I would have more support.

So there are those of us who agree with you Dan Daly and are walking it out. To have had to separate myself under one roof from the father of my children has been a tough one, but I am allowed reconciliation, and Eucharist…although now at this current state, I have a hard time doing an examination of conscience because God is forever by my side, but do I not put him first in all my thoughts because I am physically depressed or because I am a sinner who needs to use the sacrament of reconciliation to heal the sin that resides in me?

Sorry for the sad story, but the happy part, is that it is nice to have someone who affirms my station in life.

Sorry for all the run on sentences.

 

[puzzleannie]

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!

the Church’s stance is that she, no one else, can take steps to return to the Church. She has to see her priest. He will tell her that because she married outside the Church (assuming your story is correct, and you may not know all the details) her marriage was invalid due to lack of form, and that a simple paperwork process is all that is necessary to establish she is free to marry again, in the Church. He will also give her pastoral care, including confession and other sacraments, she so desperately needs.

Congratulation for being such a good friend, and tell her welcome home from us.

I only want to add, because I have people in my office every day asking similar questions, that it is useless to give an answer based on one’s own personal experience, or what happened to the last couple, because each marriage situation is unique, and no third party, including parents or bff, know all the circumstances. Such a question is always without exception referred to the pastor so he can offer all the assistance needed, not just an administrative or rule-book answer.

 

[chepner3]

Just to clarify my answer in terms of the poster’s second question … the other religion doesn’t give the annulment. It is the Bishop in the parish of your local Catholic Church that investigates and gives the release to marry.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

 

[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 believe you have incorrectly understood what I wrote. I have never said the woman was free to marry. Rather, I advised her to seek an annulment. She is not free to marry, but she is not married either. A Catholic needs to be married in the Church or have their bishops dispensation for validity.

Pax

Please show a Church teaching to support that statement- thanks

 

[Dan_Daly]

Please show a Church teaching to support that statement- thanks

The requirement to married in the Church or else have the Bishop’s dispensation has already been cited in the thread. It is important that it is a requirement for the marriage to be *valid *not just licit.

So if you are Catholic, and don’t get married in the Church or with your Bishop’s dispensation, then it is clear the marriage is not valid.

It is like if your priest decided to try celebrating the Mass with chocolate chip cookies instead of bread. You wouldn’t need a Vatican investigation to realize, the sacrament was invalid. It is quite obvious it doesn’t have what is required.

An annulment doesn’t make a marriage invalid. It is official recognition that a marriage has* always been *invalid. In some cases, such as the intent of the minister of the sacrament, either marriage or the Mass, it would be harder to tell, and I can see the acting on the presumption it is valid until the full investigation is complete. However, when it is obvious that a required element is lacking, then it is being willfully ignorant to pretend the sacrament is valid. The Catechism clearly states that willful ignorance does not remove culpability for sins but rather compounds it.

Sexual relations with someone you are not married to are not permitted under the 6th commandment. Period.

The alternative, that sexual relations are permitted, as long as they are within a state sanctioned relationship opens up all sorts of disturbing possibilities considering what types of relationships are being state sanctioned these days.

Pax

 

[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

The requirement to married in the Church or else have the Bishop’s dispensation has already been cited in the thread. It is important that it is a requirement for the marriage to be *valid *not just licit. If the Church did not recognize this marriage she would be free to marry. If another who married the same way was granted a radical sanations what would that radical sanation do?)

So if you are Catholic, and don’t get married in the Church or with your Bishop’s dispensation, then it is clear the marriage is not valid.

It is like if your priest decided to try celebrating the Mass with chocolate chip cookies instead of bread. You wouldn’t need a Vatican investigation to realize, the sacrament was invalid. It is quite obvious it doesn’t have what is required.

An annulment doesn’t make a marriage invalid. It is official recognition that a marriage has* always been *invalid. In some cases, such as the intent of the minister of the sacrament, either marriage or the Mass, it would be harder to tell, and I can see the acting on the presumption it is valid until the full investigation is complete. However, when it is obvious that a required element is lacking, then it is being willfully ignorant to pretend the sacrament is valid. The Catechism clearly states that willful ignorance does not remove culpability for sins but rather compounds it.

Sexual relations with someone you are not married to are not permitted under the 6th commandment. Period.

The alternative, that sexual relations are permitted, as long as they are within a state sanctioned relationship opens up all sorts of disturbing possibilities considering what types of relationships are being state sanctioned these days.

Pax

Please show a Church to support these statements. Please explain the assumption of a sacrament in a Natural Marriage. Please explain radication sanation when applied to these very such marriages. Please do so with Church teachings not opinions - thanks

 

[Dan_Daly]

What is an annulment? It is a declaration that a marriage is and always has been invalid. Do you disagree?

You are asking me to show evidence that sexual relations outside of a valid marriage are not moral. That seems like an unusual request. I have already provided the most obvious source of documentation- the 6th commandment.

Can you show me any Church teaching which provides for any kind of moral sexual relations outside of a valid marriage?

Pax

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What is an annulment? It is a declaration that a marriage is and always has been invalid. Do you disagree?

You are asking me to show evidence that sexual relations outside of a valid marriage are not moral. That seems like an unusual request. I have already provided the most obvious source of documentation- the 6th commandment.

Can you show me any Church teaching which provides for any kind of moral sexual relations outside of a valid marriage?

Pax

The offical Church teaching can be found in Canon Law 1061 (part) 3, you may want to also review canons 1137 and 1139.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=398764

 

[adrift]

Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.
3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.
§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly

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.

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

 

[Dan_Daly]

The offical Church teaching can be found in Canon Law 1061 (part) 3, you may want to also review canons 1137 and 1139.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=398764

The thread you linked to supports my position. Sex outside of a valid marriage is a grave wrong. Culpability may possibly be mitigated based on the degree of knowledge and consent of the person engaging in that wrong.

Sex between two unmarried persons is fornication. Whether one or both of the persons is culpable for the fornication is a seperate question. You seem to be confusing the two issues.

Pax

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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

Not exactly, Canon law applies only to baptized Catholics. Canon law does address several of these issues directly. In this case the catholic has several canons contributing to reconciliation and being free to marry. The non-catholic has restrictions on entering into communion with the Catholic Church

The thread you linked to supports my position. Sex outside of a valid marriage is a grave wrong. Culpability may possibly be mitigated based on the degree of knowledge and consent of the person engaging in that wrong.

Sex between two unmarried persons is fornication. Whether one or both of the persons is culpable for the fornication is a seperate question. You seem to be confusing the two issues.

Pax

This is considered a marriage until proven otherwise the Church is very clear on that subject. Sin only exists when one or both parties knowingly falsely claim a marriage and then the sin is restricted to the party or parties of knowledge. The other party is free of sin because the marriage is puntative. Several Canon laws deal with varies conditions arising from these issues. For example look at Laws 1143, & 1149 use of the term “marriage” what marriage do they write of? Law 1148 uses the term “wife”, how could there be a wife? The whole Article 2 section of Chapter 10 deals with these “marriages” I ask you please look at Radical Sanations in which the Church official recognizes the original exchange of vows of this “marriage” and even records the date of marriage retroactive.

I would also ask you to remember the rest of the bible which contains many other scriptures as in Genesis when god creates woman and marriage (no Catholic Church in Genesis). The 6th commandment existed long before the Catholic Church so logical makes all sex which occurred before the creation of the Catholic Church the actions of mortal sin, and that do is simple incorrect. You might also want to look up the terms licit and illicit as it may help you understand the term “valid”.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Not exactly, Canon law applies only to baptized Catholics. Canon law does address several of these issues directly. In this case the catholic has several canons contributing to reconciliation and being free to marry. The non-catholic has restrictions on entering into communion with the Catholic Church

This is considered a marriage until proven otherwise the Church is very clear on that subject. Sin only exists when one or both parties knowingly falsely claim a marriage and then the sin is restricted to the party or parties of knowledge. The other party is free of sin because the marriage is puntative. Several Canon laws deal with varies conditions arising from these issues. For example look at Laws 1143, & 1149 use of the term “marriage” what marriage do they write of? Law 1148 uses the term “wife”, how could there be a wife? The whole Article 2 section of Chapter 10 deals with these “marriages” I ask you please look at Radical Sanations in which the Church official recognizes the original exchange of vows of this “marriage” and even records the date of marriage retroactive.

I would also ask you to remember the rest of the bible which contains many other scriptures as in Genesis when god creates woman and marriage (no Catholic Church in Genesis). The 6th commandment existed long before the Catholic Church so logical makes all sex which occurred before the creation of the Catholic Church the actions of mortal sin, and that do is simple incorrect. You might also want to look up the terms licit and illicit as it may help you understand the term “valid”.

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

 

[ChibiViolet]

Divorce is a mortal sin–at least if that marraige is seen as valid by the Catholic Church.