hello! I am glad that I found this site in my quest for answers on Catholic annulments. I am a Catholic who was married to a fellow Catholic in a civil ceremony held overseas. I was promised a church wedding in the uS once he gets here. It never happened. It has been 4 yrs since and I would like to move on. I am in the process of divorce from the same marriage. I understand that the church needs to see a divorce decree first before initiating annulment process. To get a head start, I would like to know if a divorce decree would be sufficient in filing for church annulment here in the US. My concern is that my ex is still overseas and divorce is not honored there. I do not see future signs of reconcialiation since he refuses to talk to me. IN fact, the last time I talked to him was 4 years ago because he changed his phone numbers and I do not know his present address anymore. I would like to get married in a Catholic Church some day - if the church permits. Do I have a good chance of getting a church annulment approved? How long would the process take? Would like to hear feedbacks and/or advice. Thanks.

-- Anxious May (magsol614@none.com), March 30, 2004

Answers

Bump but it does form my understabdign as though you have excellent grounds for annulment.I do hope it works well for you.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 30, 2004.

You have an excellent chance of getting your Catholic annulment approved. The overseas factor may complicate things a fair bit, but it shouldn't affect the eventual outcome.

The important question, that I do not know the answer to, is whether you can file for annulment in the U.S., or if you must file in the country that you married in. If the latter, the time to get the annulment depends on whether that country has a functioning tribunal system.

For most annulment grounds, you would have to file overseas. I don't know if having a civil ceremony is an exception to this general rule.

I would recommend talking to a priest, who can discuss the matter with the canon lawyers in his diocese, and get a real answer. Although you have to wait for the divorce to finalize before filing, you should be able to inquire as to the important question of jurisdiction now.

Good luck!

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 30, 2004.

What we have here is a case of "lack of canonical form." An annulment like this can be done through a simple documentary process. Canon Law requires all Catholics to be married according to Catholic ritual - anything else is invalid. What you will need are: a copy of your baptismal certificate (it shows you are Catholic and thus obliged to the law), a copy of your marriage license (showing you were not married in accordance with the law), a copy of your final divorce decree.

Depending on how busy your local tribunal is such an annulment can take very little time.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), March 30, 2004.

Don't know about that Father Mike. The military archbishop, Bishop Ryan I believe is his name, may have granted dispensation to follow form in a non-church setting, but in a Catholic ceremony. This sort of thing happens often in his worldwide diocese as these people are relatively mobilized.

I think we need more facts before making any kind of statement as to qualification on a lack of form.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), March 31, 2004.

Pat,

May stated that her overseas ceremony was a civil ceremony. And if it was really a Catholic ceremony in a non-church setting, then they could not legitimately have a second Catholic ceremony when they returned to the U.S.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

Thanks everyone for your response. Mark brought up an interesting question on where I should file an annulment. This is what I'm worried about since the country where I had the civil ceremony does not honor divorce and I hear civil annulment there is rarely granted. As far as I know Pat, a dispensation from the church was not issued so I should qualify under lack of form. Still waiting on people with similar experiences....

-- May (pinkstrawberry@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

Pat,

What you've described is not Lack of Form, but rather a dispensation from place - a completely separate issue.

May,

It is permissible to file in the Tribunal of the place where you now live. Finish up the civil divorce and then contact your local Tribunal.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), April 01, 2004.

Father Mike,

For the issue of jurisdiction, I was worried about this canon (I've underlined the problematic clause):

Canon 1673: The following tribunals are competent in cases concerning the nullity of marriage which are not reserved to the Apostolic See:

1° the tribunal of the place where the marriage was celebrated;

2° the tribunal of the place where the respondent has a domicile or quasi­domicile;

3° the tribunal of the place where the plaintiff has a domicile, provided that both parties live within the territory of the same Episcopal Conference, and that the judicial Vicar of the domicile of the respondent, after consultation with the respondent, gives consent;

4° the tribunal of the place in which in fact most of the evidence is to be collected, provided that consent is given by the judicial Vicar of the domicile of the respondent, who must first ask the respondent whether he or she has any objection to raise.

May, is your soon-to-be-ex-husband in the U.S. military? I think the military archdiocese would qualify as being in the U.S. Episcopal Conference.

Otherwise, perhaps this canon doesn't apply to documentary process cases? I'm a little confused on this issue.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.

I asked my question about canon 1673 on Yahoo, and here is an response from Bob Flummerfelt, JCL with an explanation as to why canon 1673 does not apply in the case of "lack of form" annulments. (He mentioned a PCILT decision from 1984 on canons 1066- 1067.)

So it looks like you are all set, May, once you get the divorce out of the way. Again, good luck.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.

How do you do that HTML to incoporate a "link" into a post?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), April 02, 2004.

<A HREF="http://www.vatican.va">Click Here</A>

becomes

Click Here

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), April 02, 2004.

Mark,

Your answer assumes that May is chomping at the bit to get married now and that this is the 'reason' for the question... From my reading she 'may' want to marry later; however, she wants the validity investigated NOW -in this case I do not think your answer applies...

"I do not see future signs of reconcialiation since he refuses to talk to me."

May,

I suggest that you pray for the softening of your husbands heart and pray for guidance in this matter...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 03, 2004.

Daniel,

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could begin by quoting exactly what you are referring to as my answer; then we could see whether or not it applies.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), April 03, 2004.

"I asked my question about canon 1673 on Yahoo, and here is an response from Bob Flummerfelt, JCL with an explanation as to why canon 1673 does not apply in the case of "lack of form" annulments. (He mentioned a PCILT decision from 1984 on canons 1066- 1067.)

So it looks like you are all set, May, once you get the divorce out of the way. Again, good luck."

-how about the above, my interpretation is that Bob Flummerfelt's answer only applies to a case in which one is preparing for marriage and the investigation regarding a possible detriment determines and documents "lack of canonical form"... If one is NOT getting married then I would suggest that in pursuuing an invetigation one cannot premptively bypass proper jurisdiction or process... In essence, May is not 'all set'...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 03, 2004.

Daniel,

Thanks for clarifying your comment. Let me now justify mine:

There are two canon lawyers both saying that May can file for an annulment in her own diocese, versus no canon lawyers holding the opposite opinion. Given this, I do not think that I am rash in concluding, "So it looks like you are all set, May, once you get the divorce out of the way. Again, good luck." Furthermore, I do not see that I have assumed that May is "chomping at the bit to get married now." The only premise that I have used is that canon lawyers are indeed authorized by the Church to interpret canon law in cases such as this.

As to the assumptions that you have made in your interpretation of Bob Flummerfelt's answer, I think it makes more sense to assume that Bob simply answered my original question as written. The first paragraph of his answer is quite unambiguous:

When a couple marries where at least one party was Catholic and therefore bound to canonical form, NO process is necessary to prove the invalidity of the union. Hence, the rules of competence do NOT need to be followed since lack of canonical form 'cases' do not require a documentary or formal process.

This follows the 1917 canon law distinction of nullum vs. irritum for invalid marriages quite nicely, and I see (1) no problem at all with this answer, and (2) no assumption that the petitioner is "chomping at the bit to get married now".

Additionally, I think Bob's latter comment, "Stated another way, since the freedom of the parties to marry in the Catholic Church could be ascertained through the premarital investigation or administratively through the diocesan tribunal ..." makes it clear that both the case where the petitioner is seeking to remarry and the case where the petitioner is not seeking to remarry are both covered.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), April 04, 2004.

"makes it clear that both the case where the petitioner is seeking to remarry and the case where the petitioner is not seeking to remarry are both covered."

Mark,

My suggestion is that there is really no difference -would you agree that the only difference in the two cases is in only perspective...

In essence, the petitioner may petition the proper competent authority OR the Parish Priest may (as an advocate in regards to marital preparation) petition the proper competent authority etc...

I would suggest that a Parish Priest does not have the authority to actually declare invalidity even in a 'slam dunk' situation -he may know what the outcome will be but must still submit the 'evidence' and wait to recieve the declaration from the proper authority...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 04, 2004.

Daniel,

My suggestion is that there is really no difference -would you agree that the only difference in the two cases is in only perspective...

I'm back to not having the slightest idea what you are trying to say. I had thought that you were saying that these two cases were different, that one had jurisdictional issues while the other did not, and that I and/or Bob Flummerfelt was assuming one case while the other actually held in May's situation.

Whatever you are trying to say, the important point is that both procedures (whether you consider them the same or different) are still subject to the same basics of canon law, which is that nullum (i.e., lack of form) marriages do not enjoy the presumption of validity described in canon 1060, and so do not require any particular process to annul them.

I would suggest that a Parish Priest does not have the authority to actually declare invalidity even in a 'slam dunk' situation

It is important to notice that this is only due to administrative considerations and not because of the requirements of canon law. The experimental Policy on Declarations of Nullity of Marriages because of Lack of Canonical Form in the diocese of Austin, Texas might help you see this:

Effective January 1, 1995, a faculty is hereby given to pastors only to issue documentation to establish the nullity of certain marriages where the requirements of canonical form have not been met.

This faculty is being given on an experimental basis for a three-year period. The faculty is not to be used by a pastor until he has attended a deanery seminar on this topic.

Even in dioceses that don't grant this faculty to priests, the full canon law procedures for annulment are generally not followed by the tribunal in "lack of form" cases, e.g., the respondent is often not notified.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), April 04, 2004.

-to quote the website:

"The Current Practice

In the Diocese of Austin, as in most other dioceses, the actual declaration of nullity is a Tribunal matter. There are very good reasons for this practice. However, officials in Rome have raised the possibility of this being handled by pastors, as part of the overall pre-nuptial investigation process. In those dioceses where these declarations of nullity are being done at the parish level, the results are mixed. For this reason, the faculty is being granted on an experimental basis"

-my comments....

hmmm... seems fishy to me...

"In the Diocese of Austin, as in most other dioceses, the actual declaration of nullity is a Tribunal matter"

I hope ALL dioceses leave declarations of nullity to a competent Tribunal...

"However, officials in Rome have raised the possibility of this being handled by pastors, as part of the overall pre-nuptial investigation process."

Unnamed "officials in Rome" raising a 'possibility' does not constitute a change in official process... ????

"For this reason, the faculty is being granted on an experimental basis"

I see no 'reason' -I see justification and relative argument... What pray tell is the 'experiment'????

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 05, 2004.

Daniel,

I fear that we are digressing from the main point of helping out May with her annulment concerns, so this will be my last reply to you on this issue unless and until the moderator gives his approval to continue this line of discussion.

Unnamed "officials in Rome" raising a 'possibility' does not constitute a change in official process... ????

As I have indicated, there has been no canon law requirement for any kind of process at all for "lack of form" cases since at least 1917, so there is no issue of "change in offical process". This is purely an issue of administrative effectiveness.

What pray tell is the 'experiment'????

This is just my guess, but I would think the experiment is whether the parishes can provide improved responsiveness to petitioners while easing the case load on the tribunals in "lack of form" cases without sacrificing the accuracy of the determinations. The challenge comes from the problem that while the majority of "lack of form" cases are completely straightforward, the canon law in the marginal cases is quite complicated, as I think this discussion has brought out.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), April 05, 2004.

Better to end it than extend it.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), April 06, 2004.

-yes...

Hello Pat!

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 06, 2004.