The Annulment Process (an article explaining it)

[mdgspencer]

This article explains what an annulment is, the grounds for an annulment, the people involved in the annulmant process, and the procedures involved in an annulment.
www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=12

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Question: Does the civil divorce have to take place before annulment is applied for?

 

[JRKH]

Question: Does the civil divorce have to take place before annulment is applied for?

Yes.

Peace
James

 

[acacia12]

Well I just found that all confusing :slapfight:

 

[marian_love]

Wow. Super confusing…raised more questions for me…

 

[FCGeorge]

It is important to remember, however, that a civil divorce can NOT be “tolerated” and DOES “constitute a moral offense” unless it remains the “only possible way” to provide needed civil protections in the rare cases when a separation can be tolerated (CCC 2383). Something like 45 of our states (such as my Illinois) have a legal separation alternative that provide all of the protections except they do not civilly free someone to “remarry.” Therefore, in these states a civil divorce can NOT be tolerated and DOES constitute a " moral offense" It is extremely important for our priests, bishops and laity to start holding this Truth up. For when one is civilly divorced they are often surrounded by the temptation to believe themselves no longer married and free to date other people and free to stop loving their spouse and free to close the door to reconciliation upon true repentance… unlike, thankfully for me, Christ does for us!
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[SerraSemper]

It is important to remember, however, that a civil divorce can NOT be “tolerated” and DOES “constitute a moral offense” unless it remains the “only possible way” to provide needed civil protections in the rare cases when a separation can be tolerated (CCC 2383). Something like 45 of our states (such as my Illinois) have a legal separation alternative that provide all of the protections except they do not civilly free someone to “remarry.” Therefore, in these states a civil divorce can NOT be tolerated and DOES constitute a " moral offense" It is extremely important for our priests, bishops and laity to start holding this Truth up. For when one is civilly divorced they are often surrounded by the temptation to believe themselves no longer married and free to date other people and free to stop loving their spouse and free to close the door to reconciliation upon true repentance… unlike, thankfully for me, Christ does for us!
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING

While civil divorce done for trivial reasons is a moral offense, people must understand that civil divorces may be had when the reasons are such that a Church annulment would be likely. As a matter of fact, it can be a virtuous act to pursue such a divorce in certain circumstances.

 

[SerraSemper]

Question: Does the civil divorce have to take place before annulment is applied for?

Yes, in the United States and certain other countries. This is to protect the confidentiality from being broken by the civil courts and to avoid the “alienation of affection” between spouses.

On the other hand, some countries use the Church Tribunal as their marriage courts or give the option of going through a state divorce or Church annulment. It depends on the country, treaties with the Vatican, and local laws.

Catholics have the right to know their marital status in the Church. Are they single or are they married? Thus, they have the right to divorce (for non trivial reasons and if there is no reasonable possibility of reconciliation and if it is likely that their marriage is invalid) and to have the Church examine their status via the “annulment” process.

 

[joanofarc2008]

It is important to remember, however, that a civil divorce can NOT be “tolerated” and DOES “constitute a moral offense” unless it remains the “only possible way” to provide needed civil protections in the rare cases when a separation can be tolerated (CCC 2383). Something like 45 of our states (such as my Illinois) have a legal separation alternative that provide all of the protections except they do not civilly free someone to “remarry.” Therefore, in these states a civil divorce can NOT be tolerated and DOES constitute a " moral offense" It is extremely important for our priests, bishops and laity to start holding this Truth up. For when one is civilly divorced they are often surrounded by the temptation to believe themselves no longer married and free to date other people and free to stop loving their spouse and free to close the door to reconciliation upon true repentance… unlike, thankfully for me, Christ does for us!
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING

For someone that believes in forgiveness you sure seem to be beating your ex-wife over the head with a Catholic doctrine that you also seem to be misapplying,

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello again Joanofarc, hope you have been well.

The teaching from our Catechism is very plain on when a civil divorce can be "tolerated"and does not “constitute a moral offense”

It must be “the only possible way” of ensuring the necessary protections.

Sure, our American bishops now tell you to get one in order for the Church to consider whether or not your marriage is valid. But just because certain bishops now say this does not make it Church teaching.

I will stick with the Catechism… you can follow the American bishops… one day we will know who was holding up the Truth!!

God bless you Joanofarc.

Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello Serrasemper,

Really, according to American bishops, only “civilly divorced Catholics” have a right to know whether or not their marriages are valid.

This very new way of dealing with marriages is from the pit of Hell. When a civil divorce happens everyone starts to treat you as if you are no longer married and are able to date. You are opened up to many temptatations that otherwise would not have been there.

It is important for the shepherds of the flock in this country to see this and get rid of the civil divorce requirement.

Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

Serrasemper,

Forgot to agree with you… yes, if Jack and Jill are married but Jack civilly divorces Jill and “marries” Sara… then one day comes to hi s senses and realizes that he is in what Saint Augustine called an “adulterous remarriage” then it is most likely morally licit for a civil divorce… for there can be no marriage with Sara.
Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[JRKH]

Hello Serrasemper,

Really, according to American bishops, only “civilly divorced Catholics” have a right to know whether or not their marriages are valid.

This very new way of dealing with marriages is from the pit of Hell. When a civil divorce happens everyone starts to treat you as if you are no longer married and are able to date. You are opened up to many temptations that otherwise would not have been there.

It is important for the shepherds of the flock in this country to see this and get rid of the civil divorce requirement.

Bryan
LOVE SO AMAZING

I agree with this…because it really starts to consider “Root cause” defect and also speaks to a need for better catechesis.
Unfortunately you are right that too many people - even in the Church - view a civil divorce as the be all and end all of what is necessary. This is because kids in school and those contemplating marriage are not made forcefully aware that this is not Church teaching…

While I understand the logic behind the bishop’s position that civil divorce “signals” that the marriage is irreparably broken, and not wanting to initiate the examination process until then, it has the unfortunate side effect of NOT letting people know when they might actually BE in a situation where the marriage is indeed defective.

I think about in the “olden days” when divorce was highly frowned on and annulments nearly unheard of, people remaining in abusive and defective marriages due to the stigma attached to divorce…My wife was in such an abusive relationship for many years before she finally bailed and applied for an annulment. I remember my mom talking about her Aunt who married a widower with small children…He too was an abuser but in those days you simply did not get divorced and she died relatively young due to his abusive nature.

It may be that, for various reasons, the pendulum has swung too far the other direction and this needs corrected…But the watchword for all of us now that we have the Catechism should be…
Catechesis - Catechesis - CATECHESIS

Peace
James

 

[SerraSemper]

Let me try again. The American bishops do not typically allow for the annulment process to begin prior to a civil divorce because:

1. It does show that the parties will not reconcile.
2. It gives the parties and minor children civil protections. If the parties are NOT divorced, then their rights (and those of everyone in the case including the witnesses) in the Church can be violated because everything that is submitted to the Church can be used by subpeona for divorce and custody cases. These files are absolutely confidential and are not supposed to be given to the civil courts. Do you think that the bishops would ask for people to have their civil divorce first for a light reason?
3. The Church may be liable for “alienation of affection” suits if they do an annulment trial before a civil divorce. Again, do you really want us to get nailed in court?

Do you realize that the Church allows for two wedding ceremonies in certain countries? First there is a civil marriage. Then there is the real wedding in the Church? Grace Kelly’s marriage was that way. Obviously we don’t believe that for Catholics civil marriages are valid. But, guess what. Catholics realize that the civil law “marriages” are not the real deal, and they go on to the church wedding soon after. Maybe you could apply the same logic here. Civil divorces merely dictate the civil aspects of a union. Annulments following them (or simultaneous depending on the country), are the real deal. I really don’t think this is something anyone needs to work up about. Sure, this is not ideal, but no divorce or country is.

 

[hurting]

For someone that believes in forgiveness you sure seem to be beating your ex-wife over the head with a Catholic doctrine that you also seem to be misapplying,

Bryan is not beating his wife over the head with anything, and forgiveness is entirely compatible with asking the Church to enforce its own rules up to and including telling spouses in no uncertain terms that what they are doing may indeed be gravely sinful.

 

[hurting]

Please see my comments below:

Let me try again. The American bishops do not typically allow for the annulment process to begin prior to a civil divorce because:

1. It does show that the parties will not reconcile.

**False. At best it shows that at least one will not reconcile. Civil divorces can be procured in fairly rapid fashion, and the entire process is run by insiders with a vested interest in seeing the divorce through. The divorce process itself is exceedingly antagonistic and becomes moreso as a case progresses. **

1. It gives the parties and minor children civil protections.

False. It affords an avenue for primarily fathers to have their rights to their children (and their children’s rights to them) violently abrogated. (Yes, I do mean primarily fathers).

If the parties are NOT divorced, then their rights (and those of everyone in the case including the witnesses) in the Church can be violated because everything that is submitted to the Church can be used by subpeona for divorce and custody cases.
These files are absolutely confidential and are not supposed to be given to the civil courts.

**I think this protection may not be as great as what is being proffered here. At best the American timeline may keep the annulment proceedings from being introduced before the issuance of the final decree, but how do you know that annulment proceedings could not be introduced in, for instance, subsequent litigation related to custody of children? My sense is that annulment proceedings are equally discoverable regardless of sequence. **

Do you think that the bishops would ask for people to have their civil divorce first for a light reason?

My experience in my own case, admittedly anecdotal, suggests that the clergy up through the bishops are woefully (and I fear willfully) misinformed on the havoc that civil divorce wreaks on families.

1. The Church may be liable for “alienation of affection” suits if they do an annulment trial before a civil divorce. Again, do you really want us to get nailed in court?

**So? The Church’s job is to defend the sacrament – even if it means defending a few specious lawsuits. I doubt it would happen much anyway. **

Do you realize that the Church allows for two wedding ceremonies in certain countries? First there is a civil marriage. Then there is the real wedding in the Church? Grace Kelly’s marriage was that way. Obviously we don’t believe that for Catholics civil marriages are valid. But, guess what. Catholics realize that the civil law “marriages” are not the real deal, and they go on to the church wedding soon after. Maybe you could apply the same logic here. Civil divorces merely dictate the civil aspects of a union. Annulments following them (or simultaneous depending on the country), are the real deal. I really don’t think this is something anyone needs to work up about. Sure, this is not ideal, but no divorce or country is.

The current sequence exerts a massive chilling effect on efforts at reconciliation. Failed reconciliation leads to more divorces. More divorces lead to more petitions for nullity as Catholics realize what they’ve wrought. More petitions have led to more declarations of nullity (many, I think in error, at least as historically defined) as the American Church has implemented them as pastoral outreach. Sad indeed.

 

[JRKH]

False. At best it shows that at least one will not reconcile. Civil divorces can be procured in fairly rapid fashion, and the entire process is run by insiders with a vested interest in seeing the divorce through. The divorce process itself is exceedingly antagonistic and becomes more so as a case progresses.

Unfortunately if one party will not that means that “the parties” will not reconcile - sad but true…So Semper’s comment stands.
As for the rest - I’m afraid that this is likely true for many reasons…

My experience in my own case, admittedly anecdotal, suggests that the clergy up through the bishops are woefully (and I fear willfully) misinformed on the havoc that civil divorce wreaks on families.

Interesting point…Whether your specific statement is true or not…I think it points, once again, to the need for better Catechesis of our young people and perhaps a beefed up marriage counseling ministry for (well catechized) couples who will come to the Church first to save the marriage instead of to the divorce court to dissolve it…

The current sequence exerts a massive chilling effect on efforts at reconciliation. Failed reconciliation leads to more divorces. More divorces lead to more petitions for nullity as Catholics realize what they’ve wrought. More petitions have led to more declarations of nullity (many, I think in error, at least as historically defined) as the American Church has implemented them as pastoral outreach. Sad indeed.

This is a nice statement…Firm but fair - setting aside the opinion in parenthesis.
It speak to a larger problem and one not solved by simply beating up on the Tribunal system and instead looking at the whole picture…
In this the data available from the tribunal system could be invaluable.

Peace
James

 

[hurting]

Unfortunately if one party will not that means that “the parties” will not reconcile - sad but true…So Semper’s comment stands.
As for the rest - I’m afraid that this is likely true for many reasons…

Interesting point…Whether your specific statement is true or not…I think it points, once again, to the need for better Catechesis of our young people and perhaps a beefed up marriage counseling ministry for (well catechized) couples who will come to the Church first to save the marriage instead of to the divorce court to dissolve it…

This is a nice statement…Firm but fair - setting aside the opinion in parenthesis.
It speak to a larger problem and one not solved by simply beating up on the Tribunal system and instead looking at the whole picture…
In this the data available from the tribunal system could be invaluable.

Peace
James

James,

Regarding your last comment with respect to catechesis, I would proffer the view that as important as that may be, the clergy must take ownership of its failings in this area. The Dean of the Roman Rota recently put forth the idea that marriage should not be viewed as a concept so difficult to understand that no one could undertake it in the first place and questioned the idea that people who can manage to successfully navigate life’s other challenges (education, careers, running businesses, interacting with non-spouses) were not capable of understanding a rather uncomplicated, albeit challenging set of expectations with respect to marriage.

 

[JRKH]

James,

Regarding your last comment with respect to catechesis, I would proffer the view that as important as that may be, the clergy must take ownership of its failings in this area. The Dean of the Roman Rota recently put forth the idea that marriage should not be viewed as a concept so difficult to understand that no one could undertake it in the first place and questioned the idea that people who can manage to successfully navigate life’s other challenges (education, careers, running businesses, interacting with non-spouses) were not capable of understanding a rather uncomplicated, albeit challenging set of expectations with respect to marriage.

While I don’t dismiss want to dismiss what you say above I must say that I don’t think that the comparisons are very good…Kind of “Apples and Oranges”…

You mention about about people being able to navigate “other challenges” and marriage being a “rather uncomplicated, albeit challenging set of expectations”.
But consider that in education, in career, in running a business etc. there is extensive training - and one can change education path, one can change careers, one can simply stop interacting with people who are non-spouses, and if one fails in business they get another job and move on without stain of sin or needing approval from the Church.

But how much training is there in choosing a spouse…a Good Catholic spouse…Seriously - how much training…how much education???
And once selected, one cannot “change” a spouse like one changes careers, one cannot stop interacting with a spouse like one can with non-spousal acquaintances and if one fails in marriage one cannot move on to another relationship without stain of sin (assuming an annulment is not obtained).
So - like I say - the comparisons are kind of “apple and oranges”.

Those of us who lived through the “Spirit of Vatican two” (clergy and laity alike) must now look back and (with some dismay) try to evaluate the good and the bad…This needs to be done across the board - not just in the area of marriage.
But in the area of interpersonal relationships and courtship and marriage, it seems to me that it does need to be emphasized more. Our young people today are simply overwhelmed with cultural (name removed by moderator)uts about selecting a mate rather than Catholic (name removed by moderator)uts.
In addition the Church seems to maybe be too lenient in permitting “dispensations” to marrying outside the faith…Or those who do so simply don’t bother to get a dispensation (if they even know they need one).

It is a terribly complicated issue that will take at least 2 generations to really resolve even if the whole system of catechesis and marriage prep could be revamped tomorrow…

Peace
James

 

[SerraSemper]

I am not going to respond individually to each post here… I will just say one thing. You say that the Church must protect the sacrament of matrimony. She does. The Church must also protect the right of people to know their status in the Church. Are they single or are they married? Sure, single people could get married (get a convalidation or sanation), but really, if they are single, then there’s probably a good reason why!!! And what I mean by single people in this context is the person who is in an invalid marriage! I have seen hundreds of annulment cases. You would not believe what is revealed. In many cases I think it is a DUTY of the spouse to separate. Now I don’t know what you know about Tribunals but we have a canon lawyer assigned to each case to defend the sacramental bond of matrimony. We have another canon lawyer with the same job in the second instance court. Why? Because we must look to the rights of each party involved. The petitioner has the right to know his/her status in the Church. The respondent has that right. The bond of marriage is what is scrutinized. Were all the components necessary for marriage there at the time of consent? The defender of the bond (canon lawyer) makes sure all arguments in favor of the validity of the bond of marriage are raised and all procedural rules are followed. Remember. In the Catholic Church all singles have the right to marry. They have the right to apply for seminary or the convent. If a person is in a putative marriage, they have the right to know that they are single and free to prayerfully discern what their next step is going to be. They could get married to their partner. They could get married to someone else. They might realize they are better off being single for a long time while they work on their weaknesses. Again, we cannot dictate someone’s vocation. Thus, just because one was cohabiting with a putative spouse does not mean that one has the obligation of marrying that person once invalidity is discovered. Why? Because they have the right to discern.

I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but there are lots of rights involved in the marriage mess we have today. For instance, people have the divine law/natural law right to marriage (if they’re single). Thus we have lots of people who are not ready to place a human act proportionate to marriage seemingly do this at the time of consent. Simple little things like the intention to control whether and if and how many children you will have with your future spouse will make your marriage automatically invalid. Sorry for those who argue we issue too many decrees of nullity. The thing is, if we let this slide, we would be injuring the sacrament of marriage. Why? Because we would basically be saying that marriage is not a total gift of self in which openness to children is an absolute requirement. That is really simple and yet so common. Please tell me that I am wrong and the Church is wrong to judge in the name of God and with the power of the keys that such a “marriage” is actually valid.

Another thing you have to realize is that it actually takes TWO to consent to marriage. For very fervent Catholics, we often get inquiries as to hypothetical results of their situation if scrutinized in the tribunal. Honestly, if the person does believe they have good grounds for an annulment, then they need to discern whether they will continue to stay in their relationship or leave, and all the practical details that are involved. Again, it takes two to consent. If the situation warrants an annulment, it is not always fixable. A secret drug addict or full blown alcoholic is probably not going to change his/her ways and may pose a physical danger. If Sue marries Joe and he has a 180 degree change and shows his real self… has children… and he punches holes in the walls and shoves her about… she needs to get out to protect herself and the children. It is quite likely the marriage is invalid. She may discern that looking for a stable, kind spouse might be good for herself and her children. What’s wrong with that? She is objectively single with children on her hands.

The sad part about annulments is that because people have the right to marry and to have the Church look into one’s marital status… oftentimes it looks like the “bad guys win”. So, let’s tweak the example above slightly. For whatever reason, Sue thinks she is bound by the law to stay by Joe (she isn’t). Five years pass. Joe gets a “mistress”. He decides to ditch Sue and kids for his mistress. He puts in the petition for an annulment. It is "granted’. Why? Because the Church must be objective and see whether he is single or married. Now, the sad thing is that Joe gets “married” to his mistress in the Church. In all probability, they have entered into an invalid marriage because Joe is not ready to assume the duties of marriage yet. So, five years pass and Joe eyes another gal. Repeat and rinse. Why do we see this? Because Joe is incapable of marriage (if his bad behaviors continue). Yet, we by our laws and the laws of God cannot deny Joe his rights to know his status and allow him to get married. We don’t encourage his behaviors. We apply the law to the situation.

From this example, do you see that there are three things at stake insofar as marriage itself is concerned? Sue’s part, Joe’s part, and the bond or the lack thereof. Sue and Joe have the right to examine their marriage. While the church may be seen as “rewarding” Joe’s bad behaviors in “granting” an annulment so he can get married, it isn’t. I’m assuming in this case that the bond doesn’t exist. Therefore, one should not be shocked if the Church declares this for the Joe-Sue union, and then Joe’s subsequent union(s). Unless Joe is impotent or something, we cannot forbid him to get married for an indeterminate amount of time.

I’m sorry, but for those who think we shouldn’t have a civil divorce first… the Church guarantees the confidentiality of annulment files. They contain manifestations of conscience (frequently) among other things. Sometimes I feel it’s like the sacrament of reconciliation (I’ve never heard one, but these things can be really heart searing). Basically, they are right under the confessional seal and papal secrets as far as the strictness of our duty to keep them confidential is concerned. Those who judge, do so in the name of the Church and this is part of the binding and loosing power Christ gave to her.

Just because civil laws may be just or injust, does not mean that we shouldn’t follow our canon laws. If people have the right to seek an annulment trial, then they have that right. Period. Marriage has the right to be defended. A lot of people learn what the nature of marriage really is for the first time in going through the annulment process. And some don’t.

For those who don’t like divorce, propose to us the solution for rectifying the situation of an invalid marriage and giving the people the right to be single again in the state without it. Please remember that the person in an invalid marriage is not obliged to marry his/her partner and can’t be forced to give consent to marrying them just because people might think it’s the right thing to do. You might think of it this way. Two high schoolers had a child. Is it right to force them to get married? No! (Therein is a grounds for nullity!) They individually have to discern how to live their lives and to what vocation they might be called to. Tools are not ends. Divorce is a tool. It can be used righteously or wrongly.

One last comment. People treat annulments like it’s a rubber stamp process. Put in your paper, give money, wait a bit, and presto, you’re ready to get married or live an adventurous single life. It’s not. I have not really seen a lot of people who have actually gone through the annulment trial complain about the ease of getting it “granted”. Usually it’s quite the opposite. The intense and personal questions deter a lot of people from going far in the process. It is, after all, a trial, with 3 judges, witnesses, canon lawyers, notaries, and so on. Then, when the court has decided (usually after a year or two), in the affirmative or negative, then it may go the the second court (mandatory for affirmative cases). Here you have a new slew of judges and court who go through it all over again. If their decision doesn’t agree with the first court, it goes to Rome (usually). And, as far as money is concerned, Rome often charges a lot more for its court than the USA tribunals do. I think they require about $800 for expenses. Many tribunals here charge a lot less for expenses, and a lot of the time run deeply in the red because they cannot deny someone the right to a trial and must give free labor if needed. Yep. The reason why Tribunals charge $400-1200 for a case is because there are office expenses and salaries. Those who work on these cases must eat too. As a Judge, I have spent days over certain cases. How can a person who is not independently wealthy afford to give that amount of time to make sure all rights are respected and that the truth of the matter is discovered: whether the Sue-Joe bond exists or not in the eyes of God and Church or whether the presumption of marriage stands because of the lack of convincing proof that there could be nullity? That’s why we have tribunals and paid staff and the Church requires just recompense unless one cannot afford it. Then we do pro bono work or accept payment plans or operate with sliding scales. And then the diocese subsidizes our work. I recall that in one diocese, about 1/4 of the people who got annulments actually paid more than the modest filing fee ( >$50), a fee which incidentally, many parishes pick up if the person is broke.