But consider well how unjust it is to prevent a person from "second" marriage when the "first" union was a fraud, when he or she really wasn't Sacramentally married to their ex at all. You've got people who never had valid vows nor that one-flesh bond of which the Scripture speaks. Christ Himself says the bond is indestructible "except in the case of porneia" --- and that first attempted marriage was porneia.
"Sally was previously married, of her own free will..."
The State of North Carolina might say that, but the Catholic Church would not say that: because her so-called spouse demonstrated from the very inception of the attempted marriage, that his vows were a fraud. That's the law of the Church: no intention, no vow; no vow, no bond; no bond, no impediment for her present, real and final marriage with a man who really did and does intend what the Church intends.
No intent, no vow? How can one marry without intent? If they're drunk or something? Kind of like that old cliche about going to Vegas and waking up married? As far as accepting as fact that the ex made fraudulent vows based on testimony from only one side, how is that fair? There are almost always two sides to every story. The only way to find out is to investigate. And how are parish priests now supposed to find the time to undertake a thorough investigation in cases like this? Aside from the fact that most are currently overloaded with crushing duties, they are simply not trained for this.
But consider well how unjust it is to prevent a person from "second" marriage when the "first" union was a fraud, when he or she really wasn't Sacramentally married to their ex at all.
Do you not see the contradiction in the above statements? Is it not up the Marriange Tribunal, not an RCIA instructor, to determine a marriage to be a fraud?