Ok. Sorry to come up with yet another situation, but here goes... Catholic girl marries NON-catholic guy, using a NON-denominational reverend in a civil ceremony. Knowing that this is not valid in the eyes of the Catholic church (of which this girl is baptised), and said parties eventually divorce, then the chuch would also NOT recognize the divorce since marriage did not officially take place ?? So in such a case, an anullment would not have to be sought from the church since they didnt recognize it to begin with? 'Girl would not be considered divorced?? Is this girl still considered single by the church? Could this girl be married in the catholic church in the future, if she was involved with a civil divorce? It seems like it creates alot of dilemma...going further on, if said couple is not married in the eyes of the church, then if adultery is committed, is this also not recognized? (except by the two parties of course)

-- Ima Catholic (Aint@home.net), July 27, 2004

Answers

Response to yet ANOTHER anullment question

"So in such a case, an anullment would not have to be sought from the church since they didnt recognize it to begin with?"

An annulment is a statement by the Church to the effect that a particular putative marriage is not recognized. The fact that a particular union isn't recongnized by the Church is exactly why a statement of annulment IS needed. One cannot simply assume a union is null, without such a statement by the Church. A situation such as you described makes it virtually certain that an annulment will be granted, but it is not a reason to bypass the annulment process.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 27, 2004.

But if the marriage was not recognized to begin with, then what would there be to anull?? I thought anullments were for marriages that should not have taken place to begin with, not ones that are not recognized ?!

-- Ima Catholic (aint@home.net), July 27, 2004.

It's one and the same thing! A marriage that "should not have taken place to begin with" is a marriage that is not recognized as valid. A writ of annulment is simply an official statement, after due investigation, that a particular union "is not recognized", or "should not have taken place to begin with". You can't say "because the Church didn't recognize this union from the start, it cannot now state that it didn't recognize this union from the start". Rather, because the Church didn't recognize this union from the start, it will now render an official statement to that effect. Remember that an annulment does not change the status of a putative marriage at all. It simply states officially what has always been true. There is never anything "to annul". There is only a fact to be officially stated, and that fact must be officially stated before the parties are free to marry.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 27, 2004.

Don't know if anyone can answer this, but how was Ted Kennedy able to recieve an annulment? Any truth to his family buying one from the church?

-- Roger (ro@yahoo.com), July 27, 2004.

Okay, Ima, the short reply to your question is this: a Catholic (i.e. someone baptized in the Church who has not publicly repudiated it or joined another denomination or religion) who "marries" anyone in a non-Catholic ceremony (i.e. Protestant, civil, or other ceremony), is not married. They do not need an "annulment"; they need a declaration from their bishop's office that the marriage was void for "defect of form" (i.e. they didn't get a Catholic marriage in the Church). Getting such a declaration is actually rather routine and does not retire the formal process of an annulment.

-- observer (nospam@nomail.com), July 28, 2004.

I think using the term "Declaration for Lack of Form" is a big help. Although this is not the term used in the Church, it seems to be lot easier to digest for those who are not familiar with canon law. It seems like a large majority of questions that seem to float through here fall into this area.

At the same time, there are a lot of faithful Catholic lurkers with questions about annulment investigations that fall under "lack of discretion" (ie. canon 1095). I'm getting personal emails all the time from good Catholics that feel they are being railroaded by their spouse and tribunal in a canon 1095 case. I've made a large number of referrals to my own canon lawyer in the U.S.

If you need help in this area feel free to send me an email. The email address I have here is real (as a result of this a deluge of spam finds its way to me too so its best to use CAPS in the Subject line).

I'm going to do a post soon with some direct contacts to different competent canon lawyers who are not conflicted by a vow of loyalty to a local bishop.

God bless,

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

re: Ted Kennedy

I'm certainly no expert , but I believe that one of the grounds for an annulment is if one of the parties lacks any proper moral understanding of the marriage covenant and/or lacks the emotional maturity to even attempt to live it out faithfully. That pretty much describes Ted Kennedy to a T. He doesn't just have grounds for an annulment: he IS grounds for an annulment.

-- Megan (megagordo@aol.com), July 31, 2004.

My new email address is posted below.

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.