Posted on 06/29/2013 6:03:58 AM PDT by Weiss White
Q: My sister wants an annulment so she can remarry in the Church. But when she began asking questions about how to go about it, she was immediately told that she can’t get an annulment unless she is divorced first. Can that possibly be true, or is her diocese doing something heretical? The Church is opposed to divorce, but then it pressures Catholics to get divorced… why is she being told she must get a divorce? –Denise
(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawmadeeasy.com ...
An annulment in a civil sense would require some other reason like fraud, bigamy, or some such, as opposed to the acceptable reasons for divorce like, infidelity, impotence (failure to discharge marital duties), abuse, etc.
Annulment would mean that the marriage contract was invalid when made.
Yes, that’s what the lawyer wrote in the article to which I linked. Civil annulment and civil divorce are governed by different statutes.
Grounds are much more limited, more proof is required, and it's going to cost a lot more than a routine divorce.
First, a civil, government “divorce” makes clear that the couple seriously does not intend to behave, in the future, as a couple. It might not be “required” under Church law, but I do not think the Church should waste much of its resources or time on marriages that have failed in the Civil, government courts.
Next? The Catholic Church does NOT consider divorce a sin. The problem is in remarriage, if the original marriage was indeed “sacramental”.
Furthermore, and there will be MANY ignorant posts which will try to refute me on this, but I know that I am correct:
An official annulment from the Church Tribunal is NOT required if the conscientious Catholic, in the “internal form” (your own conscience) is convinced that the marriage was not valid.
This is Church law. Anyone who contests what I just posted is very ignorant on the subjects. But contest they will, as some seem to insist on formal annulments, no matter what.
Use common sense. A formal annulment says, in effect, that the marriage NEVER happened in the eyes of God. The formal annulment does not REVERSE or UNDO the marriage contract, it states, factually, that no contract ever existed.
If the conscientious Catholic already knows this fact?
No formal process is required, but it is suggested that you discuss it with your local Priest, in order to avoid any possible objections from ignorant Catholics. (Also known as “avoiding scandal”)
Bingo...
I’ve been thinking about the back-story on this, wondering what’s going on.
“My sister” wants an annulment so she can marry her boyfriend in the Church, but she wants to stay legally married to her first husband ...
... so she can inherit his estate tax-free.
... until the exclusionary period on their pre-nup has passed.
... until they can sell the house they co-own.
I’m sure there are other possibilities.
I imagine that a legal/civil annulment is something not found in most states. I’ve never heard of it in law school, nor in any state I’ve lived in.
Can someone tell me more?
Don’t most states have liberal divorce laws that let couples divorce easily if they both agree?
An official annulment from the Church Tribunal is NOT required if the conscientious Catholic, in the “internal form” (your own conscience) is convinced that the marriage was not valid.
I’m getting married (outside the church) before receiving my expected annulment.
The key terminology in my mind is that the Tribunal “declares the marriage to have been a nullity” (my wording). That means that it already is a nullity (never was a marriage), but just must be formally declared so.
That said, I still understand that while a marriage outside the Church might not be a sin (adultery), the Declaration is needed for a marriage within the church.
Look up the “Internal Forum” — there were some efforts by the “law and order” types, within the Church, to require that some form of official recognition of an “internal forum” decision had been made.
The Vatican REJECTED that move, saying that the “forum” would no longer be “internal” if formal regulations were required.
I suspect it's gone up a bit ...
I married young and we "outgrew" each other. We divorced after 12 years. I met my current wife of 38 years and we were making plans for a church wedding when the Priest informed us we would need an annulment. We asked how to go about that and he said we needed to file papers before an Ecclesiastical Court and that we could expect a decision in two to three years. We decided to go with a civil ceremony and told the Priest "thanks, but no thanks".
The 3 year estimate may have improved over the years but I doubt it improved all that much. Most people will not put up with such staggering inefficiency when there are clear alternatives.
Regards,
GtG
“The wording of that law may be very, very old, and a hold-over from a time when there was thought to be a medical, physical condition called “frigidity” that was roughly an analog to male impotence. Although the word is still in use, the meaning has shifted in that it’s no longer a respectable opinion to think that there are women who are literally, physically frigid.”
There is a condition called, IIRC, vaginismus, that may make penetration impossible.
NOPE. Where did you get that information?
The Church investigates and may determine that a legitimate marriage never took place. It has NOTHING at all to do with government 'status'.
As well, a civil divorce is meaningless technically; just as meaningless to the Church as a civil marriage. The Church recognizes cases where a civil divorce may be necessary as a last resort in cases of abuse or infidelity when financial issues require it during discord in the relationship. Again, the divorce is simply a legal action that has nothing to do with validity of marriage.
A cause for divorce at one time had to be proven. In those days MAYBE the Church could rely on civil courts to lend legitimacy to causes for divorce/separation of spouses. NOW, however, with no-fault divorce that assumption can never be the case.
Those in the Church who at one time may have allowed and or required a divorce as proof that the relationship suffered legitimate discord can no longer rely upon a divorce decree as anything meaningful. In fact, no-fault tends to damage severely vestiges of potential hope in salvaging a damaged relationship as it tends to be a splitting of the baby in half process with only the predetermined outcome assured.
One could say as I would agree that requiring a divorce before a tribunal investigation is comparable to cutting a baby in half before determining if the baby is alive. It's just plain DUMB...
You are incorrect. There is no internal forum that as you suggest determines anything.
I find the R.C. church's stand on marriage as related to ones disability or inability to have sex {in the context of being able to have children} rather amusing and somewhat misguided and way out of date for medical advances of today.. I know why it was written but pardon my wording they know not what they are talking about.
The divorce or infidelity rate for couples marrying with disabilities is much lower than where a healthy couple suddenly faces the severe disability of a spouse. Marriages entered into with a known disability fair pretty well because the non disabled spouse has accepted it before hand. BTW disability even quadriplegia doesn't necessarily mean a man nor woman can not bring forth offspring either.
Our 28th anniversary is in November. I am the birth father of no children. I am the father of now two adults whom I helped raise up from their pre-teens. We married after the onset of disability inside a Catholic Hospital Chapel with a Baptist minister officiating and a Priest and several Nuns as our guest.
My wife's rehab doctor whom we met a month after we had married asked us how long we had been married. When we said a month he said "Whew good. You'll likely be OK" he also said "it's the ones who are married and disability hits that have the high marriage fail rate."
We're happy & very married indeed. :>}
Your opinion is premised upon an incorrect understanding of what the Church actually teaches. As to procreation, [it] has nothing to do with ability to and everything to do with openness to with acknowledgement that miracles as well can happen IF one is open to God's will. As well, looking at 'medical advances' the Church remains steadfast in teaching that evil means regardless noble intent remain evil and prohibited. NO ends justify evil means.
Speaking for myself only, annulments in the Church may require dishonesty.
The Vatican has made it very clear that these matters can be resolved through the “internal forum” or ones on conscience.
There are times when the annulment procedure itself is sinful on the part of the person who applies. What would you think of a person who petitioned for annulment KNOWING that a relative of the ex had just had a stroke or was in poor health, AND that Ex still INSISTED on sending a questionnaire to that sick former in-law, and did not bother to tell the Tribunal of this little detail?
Also, many deal with mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, verbal and physical abuse with relatives and former in-laws who might not take well to any questionnaires received in the mail.
These are the situations which DEMAND some internal examination of conscience, to determine if the Catholic involved really NEEDS the opinion of 3rd parties, as to the validity of a marriage.
I suggest you read the book “With Open Arms” by John Hosie.
http://www.amazon.com/With-Open-Arms-Catholics-Remarriage/dp/089243810X
There are many other valid church documents which support what I am telling you.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor” is a Commandment, and many Catholics are guilty of this sin, when they judge those who have divorced and remarried.
Everyone should read this book on the subject of the “internal forum”
http://www.amazon.com/With-Open-Arms-Catholics-Remarriage/dp/089243810X
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.