Pope says judgments on annulments must be impartial and pastoral

Catholic Herald ^ | 1-24-2014 | Francis X Rocca

[ebb tide]

Very high; and they’ll probably become even higher come this October.

By then, you may not even need a lawyer; just an internet connection and a valid credit card.

[married21]

Honestly, so far I haven’t read any actively contested cases. But I personally would count as a success in this process any couple who reconciles and withdraws their paperwork. Unfortunately, I don’t know how many pastors are out there actively trying to reconcile people who have already had a civil divorce. (A civil divorce is a pre-requisite to filing a petition in LA.)

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

THANK YOU. VERY INFORMATIVE.

I read the story of the Kennedy wife who fought the annullment saying they had 3 children.that I have a hard time with...what happens to the children in the eyes of the church?

also, what does the church do if the woman has left an abusive spouse?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...what happens to the children in the eyes of the church?

Not sure what you mean. They have no set-apart status, neither negative nor positive. They still have the right to be provision and up-bringing of their parents. The Church doesn't have any category of "bastard" -- the word is not in the Church's vocabulary. Any child begotten/conceived is called the person's "natural child," regardless of the parents' marital status.

"...also, what does the church do if the woman has left an abusive spouse?"

Do? Again, I'm not sure what you mean. She left an abusive spouse? That is her right, maybe (depending on the circumstances) her duty, especially if there's risk of harm to herself of the children.

None of the options for her protection in civil society (separation, divorce, getting a peace bond against a violent abusive husband, bringing criminal charges) would be disapproved or excluded by the Church.

[Solson]

Coward.

[ebb tide]

In what way? I’m still married to first and only wife. How about you?

Cowards are the wimps who seek annulments for material or carnal desires.

[One Name]

Sorry for the delayed response as I have been away.

If you mean that one partner has defrauded the other as to their status, then no. The unknowing victim is not bound then, either.

The next logical question in my mind, then is:

When unsaved unbelievers marry, are they bound?

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Catholic Church teaches that a sacramentally binding marriage can only be entered into by baptized persons. So: no baptism, no sacrament.

However, "natural marriage" (a marriage between unbaptized persons), while not a sacrament, is still a valuable and respected thing. What I mean is, we don't treat a marriage between Hindus, or Jews, or Buddhists, or agnostic secular spouses, as if it were "nothing." It's viewed with respect. It's just recognized that three is no "sacramental" bond. A canonical tribunal would have no jurisdiction.