i started an application for annulment with my ex wife. We have been divorced 6 years after 18 years of marriage and 3 children. After the initial request was accepted, she was told by our local co-ordinator that if we did get the annulment we could never remarry each other in the church. We have tried off and on to work things out, always unsuccessfully, and have also dated others seriously. She is now methodist, but I have remainded Catholic and wish to continue as one. Although both of us are currently seeing someone else, we do not want to permanently close the door on our relationship as we both pray for God's healing touch in our lives. Is it true that once our marriage is annuled we can never marry each other again in the church, even if the problems are corrected?

-- Felix Henry Savoie (busavoie@aol.com), April 13, 2003

Answers

bump

-- bumpity (bump@bump.com), April 13, 2003.

actually, no, that is not true. an annulment effectually cancels a marraige for a given reason (it is not recognized by God because it was done impoperly, or one person committed adultery, etc). effectively, your children are now born out of wedlock. however, since you have now been 'unmarried' per se in the eyes of God, you are now free to remarry whomever you choose. if i were you i'd date that person for a lllllllllooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggg time before getting married, just to make sure

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 13, 2003.

An annulment does not "cancel" a marriage. An annulment is an official statement to the effect that there never was a valid marriage to "cancel". If there was a valid marriage, it could not be "cancelled" by anything other than the death of one of the spouses. There is therefore no question of your "remarrying" in the Church, since the Church doesn't see you as ever having been actually married.

It is also untrue that the children born of such a union are considered illegitimate. Canon law states that "children who are conceived or born of a valid or of a putative marriage are legitimate." A marriage which is eventually discerned to be invalid through the annulment process was nevertheless considered valid by both parties at the time of the wedding, and presumably at the time the children were conceived. This constitutes a "putative marriage", and children conceived in such a relationship are therefore legitimate.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 13, 2003.

Felix,

I think your co-ordinator is incorrect. If an annulment is granted YOU & Wife were never married -therefore, you can not remarry BUT you can marry :)

Paul,

My interpretation of Church/Canon Law is slightly different than yours regarding legitimacy of the children...

-My understanding of the legitimacy:

Specifically, when one considers Can. 1137 which states that "Children who are conceived or born of a valid or of a putative marriage are legitimate."

- and then when one considers Can. 1137 Part 3 which states that "An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity."

-Reading through & considering the Canon Law stated above, I come to the conclusion that if a marriage is declared invalid by a Tribunal that it is certain the Petitioner is certain of "its nullity"; furthermore, if the Respondent were to marry another with the blessing of the church -- the Respondent, in essence would be by act declaring thier certainty of "its nullity"...

-if both parents were at some point sure of "its nullity" then the children would be illegitimate...

--If I am incorrect in my interpretation please correct me.

--If I am correct, what impact does that have on the children?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 13, 2003.

Dear Daniel,

You are correct in saying that once a divorce has been obtained, and a petition subsequently submitted to the tribunal, the petitioning party is most likely convinced of the nullity of the marriage. However ...

- It is highly improbable that children will be conceived by that couple subsequent to that point in time.

- The fact that one spouse believes the union to be null does not necessarily mean the other spouse agrees.

- The fact that one spouse believes the union to be null does not mean that he/she is correct. The tribunal may find otherwise.

The main point here is "once legitimate, always legitimate". If the marriage is valid, or at least putatively valid, at the time the children were conceived, then they ARE LEGITIMATE because of that fact, and nothing that happens subsequently can change their status.

Fortunately, the stigma of "illegitimacy" has come to mean less and less over time. Of course, the fact of sexual union outside of marriage has also become widely accepted, which is NOT a good thing. But I believe that avoiding the labeling of innocent children because of the sins of their parents is a very good thing.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 13, 2003.

An annulment does not "cancel" a marriage. An annulment is an official statement to the effect that there never was a valid marriage to "cancel".

First of all, this is semantics. in effect, the annulment process shows that the marraige never was valid. and therefore, being that the marraige never was valid, the priest, or pastor if that be the case, should never have said the words "husband and wife" and that, therefore is cancelled. i see you as smart enough to know what i was talking about paul second of all, i never called the children illagitamit, i said they were born out of wedlock... there is a distinct difference there. if it is as you say, and an annulment shows that the marraige was never valid in the first place, then the children were never born in a putative marraige to begin with. if you dont believe me, i'll take out the my dad had my parents wedding annuled so that he could get remarried card and show my membership to the ones who have experience. do i think im illegitamit? no, but do i think i was born out of wedlock? yes.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 14, 2003.

"and an annulment shows that the marraige was never valid in the first place, then the children were never born in a putative marraige to begin with"

Dear Paul,

That is incorrect. A "putative marriage" means a situation in which there was reasonable cause to assume that a valid marriage exsisted at the time, based on the evidence available at the time. This is totally unrelated to the question of any subsequent determination of actual validity or invalidity.

I see your point - however, the distinction you are making between "illegitimate" and "born out of wedlock" is your personal interpretation of the terms. Generally these terms are taken as synonymous.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 14, 2003.

Let me correct a typo from earlier post; reference should have been Can. 1061 Part 3 which is as follows:

Can. 1061 Part 3 which states that "An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.

Furthermore, to quote Canon: "It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity" clearly states 'when' which does subject legitimacy of children to a subsequent determination...

The law seems succinct -am I missing something? If there is disagreement please quote specific law I can refer to -not 'opinion'

Again -what does this mean if my children were to become designated illegitimate?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 14, 2003.

"It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity" clearly states 'when' which does subject legitimacy of children to a subsequent determination..."

No, it does not. The phrase "CEASES to be such" indicates that the union WAS IN FACT a putative marriage prior to that point in time. Therefore any and all children born or conceived between the wedding day and the point at which the union CEASED to be a putative marriage ARE legitimate. Their status does not change in any way if the recognized status of the marriage later changes. The matter of legitimacy is decided - PERMANENTLY - at the moment of a child's conception OR birth. If either of those events takes place within the context of a putative marriage, the child IS legitimate, and that fact cannot be altered by ANY subsequent development.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 14, 2003.

Paul,

Thank you -I understand the logic; however, there is still something therein that does not 'feel' right... I will eventually discern what alludes me regarding this putative marriage business. I would venture to say that there is nothing wrong with the description of the putative 'argument' if one is to accept 'putative' as being a valid state. I think I know now what it is -- It sure does seem like an eloquent loophole that ensures legitimacy sans 'til death do you part' - a loophole concieved of man -what say you? What of the historical context and inclusion of this putative term into canon law I would presume it is nowhere to be found in the bible?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 14, 2003.

Sometimes I wonder... Is this a forum for lawyers or Catholics. Why is it that your trying to find a loophole to marrage? Common sense shows us that once you consummate the marrage, the marrage is valid for whatever reason. 18 years of togetherness does not invalidate marrage. Divorce is divorce.

Annulment should be reserved for the unsure bride on her wedding night.

-- JohnQ_Public (john@aol.com), April 15, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, John Q. Public. You wrote:
"Sometimes I wonder... Is this a forum for lawyers or Catholics."

Clearly, it is a forum for Catholics (and respectful non-Catholic visitor).

However, if, as a Catholic, you wish to be critical of what someone says, then you have to know what the Church teaches. The Church does not teach what you stated -- namely:
"Common sense shows us that once you consummate the marriage, the marrage is valid for whatever reason."

JQP, consummation of a "marriage" does not cause a union to become valid. Consummation is not enough. There must also be all of these:
(1) the absence of certain impediments (barriers) [e.g., being too young, being bound by a vow of chastity, etc.],
(2) the following of the required "form" of marriage by Catholics [place, vows, witnesses, etc.], and
(3) free and full consent at the time of the exchange of vows.

If any of these things is missing, there is an invalid "union," and an act of intercourse cannot overcome that invalidity.

God bless you.
John 18 years of togetherness does not invalidate marrage. Divorce is divorce. Annulment should be reserved for the unsure bride on her wedding night.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 17, 2003.

Oops! Please disregard the final words (after my "signature"), which were accidentally copied from above.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 17, 2003.

>>> There must also be all of these: >>> (1) the absence of certain impediments (barriers) [e.g., being too young, being bound by a vow of chastity, etc.], >>> (2) the following of the required "form" of marriage by Catholics [place, vows, witnesses, etc.], and >>> (3) free and full consent at the time of the exchange of vows.

In defense of my statement, it is true that sex does not make a marriage, but… Any doubt or uncertainty should be reserved for early in the marriage, not 18 years later and/or after bearing three kids.

Common sense (again) directs us to think that any unresolved issues, as stated above could be used to petition an Annulment such as being married to one and bearing children with another (husband or wife), years of fornication without the others knowledge and/or lying about their children’s parentage. Something caused this marriage to fail and that something is missing from this thread. To continue this discussion further (IMHO) we need the missing reason.

Note: John@aol.com is a bogus email address.

-- JohnQ_Public (John@aol.com), April 17, 2003.