I was married at 17, but my ex-husband cheated on me after only about 1-1/2 years of marriage, so we were divorced. I am now considering joining the Catholic church, and would love to be part of the full Catholic experience - including being able to marry in the Catholic church. I would consider an annulment, but I'm afraid I won't be able to get one because in the divorce proceedings, I had to sign a contract that stated that I (or anyone associated with me) was never to contact he or his family again. Can I still seek an annulment without contacting him? Any answers would be appreciated. - Dana

-- Dana C. (chuckys.doll@gmail.com), March 04, 2005

Answers

You can initiate the process without his being contacted. And. you will not have to contact him yourself. The tribunal will send him notice and give him the opportunity to respond. If he chooses not to respond and not to provide any input, the annulment will still procede. Make sure the tribunal is aware of the clause in your divorce. The lawyers involved with the tribunal will know how to properly deal with it without your being liable for violating it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 05, 2005.

Yes, Dana. No civil law or contract or agreement can prevent the Catholic Church from seeking to determine whether or not you and your "husband" were validly married on your wedding day. Your wedding is a matter of public record, and the Church cannot be forbidden from attempting to contact either party to seek information.

You yourself will not have to contact the man. You will only have to give the Church his name (and address, if you have it). The Church will then simply offer to allow (but not to compel) your "husband" to provide testimony in your case. He will be completely free to ignore the invitation.

Please visit the pastor of your local Catholic parish as soon as you can, so that you can begin to move in the right direction. "Be not afraid."

-- (Hoo@deanie.com), March 05, 2005.

In the instance that no legitimate annulment can be granted ( a real possibility), you can still enjoy full participation in the Catholic church, but as a celibate member.

I encourage you to start the process, but examine it carefully yourself. If no valid ground for annulment can be explained, other than immaturity on you or your prior mate, I caution you to have a healthy scepticism as this ground is often badly administered by church tribunals in the United States and applied illegitimately to grant false decress of nullity.

This is a real controversy in the church that you should be aware about, and is in the process of change by the Holy Father in Rome, back to the way it is supposed to be. The Catholic faith is one complete truth, and no part of it can be deleted, including what Christ has taught regarding the sanctity of marriage.

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), March 06, 2005.

Dana,

Were you two married in a Catholic Ceremony? If not, you likely have a slam dunk case due to lack of form.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), March 06, 2005.

examine it carefully yourself

No, Dana. Do not try to "examine it" yourself. Such examination is for the marriage tribunal's "canon lawyers" who will deliberate your case. You are not even a Catholic yet, so you are obviously not a canon lawyer. Thus you are not able to "examine it carefully yourself." Even if you were a canon lawyer, you would be unwise to "examine it carefuly yourself," because you would be unable to avoid approaching the facts without bias.

No one here at this forum (except perhaps one priest) is a canon lawyer, so we too are not able to "examine it carefully" for you. Even the priest cannot "examine it" for you, since he does not have your case's detailed facts and testimony in his hands.

So I say again, let the canon lawyers of your local Catholic diocese do the careful examination. And if they do make a decision that mentions "immaturity" as a factor, don't let that bother you or make you fear that they have made a mistake.

-- (Hoo@deanie.com), March 06, 2005.

Thank you for all your help, everyone. I appreciate all the answers. I will be seeking the advice of a qualified canon lawyer as soon as possible.

- Dana C.

-- Dana C. (chuckys.doll@gmail.com), March 06, 2005.

Karl, Marriages made outside the Catholic church, but between baptised christians, are still considered sacramental marriages by the Catholic church.

John (Who-deenie), You are a deceiver, blinded by self-righteous pride, and without the courage to post under your actual name.

Dana, Do what is right, but following a conscience that is well-formed. By all means, explore the annulment process. But if you begin to feel that it is an untruthful exercise, gather all the correspondence and other evidence you have with the tribunal and withdraw. Then report the experience to the Rota and the Signatura in Rome and provide a copy of the evidence.

The Rota and Signatura are the high courts in the Catholic church and in the process of stamping out the current abuses regarding marriage cases at American diocese tribunals. They will investigate and they do act. They have been given a mandate to address this problem in the U.S. and Canada.

Unfortunately, many American bishops have been appointing judges inclinded to simply give people what they want, rather than the Truth. It is our responsibility as lay-persons to correct this error by many American bishops.

This is a severe problem in the church, and was the central message in the Holy Father's address to the Roman Rota last month. (You can see see this speach on the Vatican website. If anyone can add a link, it would be appreciated.)

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), March 07, 2005.

Good for you, Dana! It is always gratifying when people ignore self- proclaimed experts and would-be canon lawyers.

-- (Hoo@deanie.com), March 07, 2005.

Pat,

I missed that she was not Catholic, I presumed it. My mistake. Very Sorry. I stand corrected and thank you.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.

John (AKA Mr. Who-deenie-weenie),

Self-gratifaction is your clearly your goal. Glad to see you pleasing yourself in public again.

Sincerely, Patrick R. Delaney

-- PRD (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), March 07, 2005.

In the history of planet Earth, there has never been a bigger "self- gratifier" than P.R.D.. Never has there walked a more obnoxious, self-pitying, attention-seeking, wheel-spinning, repetitive, thin- skinned, incompetent, and hate-filled wimp. Just being anywhere near the miserable wretch helps a person burn off all his purgatory time, so painful it is to endure P.R.D.'s daily pre-kindergarten-level antics.

-- (Hoo@deanie.com), March 08, 2005.

I was married at 17, but my ex-husband cheated on me after only about 1-1/2 years of marriage, so we were divorced.

Dana,

Divorce is rarely acceptable and even then only on a temporary and conditional basis. Divorce does not just happen and rarely is it a mutual endeavor. At this time you do not require a decree of nullity to become "part of the full Catholic experience" as long as you are not culpable in promulgating injustice -objectively answering the question "who divorced who and why?" will tell you this...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 08, 2005.

Pat,

In a response to Karl you stated: "Marriages made outside the Catholic church, but between baptised christians, are still considered sacramental marriages by the Catholic church."

That statement needs to be nuanced just a bit. A better blanket statement would have been to substitute the word "valid" for the word "sacramental." Marriages between 2 baptized Orthodox Christians, married in their church, would be considered sacramental (and valid) but marriages between 2 baptized Protestants would not be considered sacramental though they would be considered valid (as long as the people involved followed the requirements of their respective ecclesial communities).

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), March 08, 2005.

Interesting nuance Father Mike.

John, You're projecting. BTW...sticks and stones (you know the rest).

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.

Fr. Mike,

Could you comment on how your statement relates to canon 1055 §2:

Canon 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

§2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptised persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.

You are right, Mark. Fr. S had a (very rare) memory lapse, I guess. The marriage of two Protestants (or of one Protestant to a Catholic or Orthodox person), if presumed valid, is also presumed sacramental.

Daniel, you made a statement that is erroneous ("Divorce is rarely acceptable and even then only on a temporary and conditional basis.") You cannot quote any statement to this effect from a Catholic Church document. "Divorce," in the eyes of the Church, is simply a state-sanctioned (usually permanent) separation of a married couple. A careful reading of Canon Law (canons 1151 - 1155) shows that it is possible for a separation to be permanent (even when a couple is validly married). (This can be proved in a future post, if you find yourself unable to give these canons a careful enough reading.)

Moreover, there is a case in which the Church very clearly sanctions "divorce" (permanent separation) -- namely, when the "Pauline Privilege" is invoked.

-- (Hoo@deanie.com), March 08, 2005.

John (who-deenie),

I see you have decided to crawled into the marriage threads again.

If I could see any good motive for you being here I would rejoice. Unfortunately I can't. All I see a proud little sacristy rat who grooves on being churchy, and tries in the cruelest of ways to antagonize anyone who doesn't agree with him.

The point Daniel refers to, regarding divorce, and its acceptability under limited circumstances and preferably for only temporary periods, can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Why don't you look it up?

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), March 12, 2005.

Patricia, you are guilty of deception or inexcusable carelessness. Only the Lord and you know which it was, but either one (in addition to all your other negative attributes) leaves you incompetent to criticize or instruct me.

As I stated in my post, Daniel's words were (with emphasis added): "Divorce is rarely acceptable and even then only on a temporary and conditional basis."

You then stated: "The point Daniel refers to, regarding divorce and its acceptability under limited circumstances and preferably for only temporary periods, can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
Thus, you falsely or wrongly stated that Daniel spoke of divorce "preferably for only temporary periods". If he had said, "preferably," I would not have posted a single thing about his message. But since he failed to say "preferably" (and instead unconditionally stated that a divorce could "only" be temporary," I had the right and duty to speak up, for readers' benefit.

I know the truth, and I even referenced the relevant canons, so I don't need to "look it up." To "look it up" is something that you should have told your alter-ego, Daniel, not me.

Hoodeanie (not "John")

-- (Hoo@deanie.com), March 12, 2005.

John Gecik (Who-deenie), You're decieving only yourself.

You will deny this deep personal need, but for your own good, I counsel you again to seek professional counseling for your narcism wrapped in piety. You help no one here, and lead many astray.

I'll remember to pray for you today. Sincerely. PRD

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), March 13, 2005.

Hoodeanie (not "John") John,

Get a grip man. The title of the section I referenced is "Separation While The Bond Remains"... "Pauline Privilege" severs the bond... I suggest you find the bond to reality you have apparently severed...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 13, 2005.

Paddie and Dannie,

Don't forget to get to Confession during Holy Week. And stop trying to fool folks here into thinking that I am a "heavy" and that you are little cherubs. You have been around here too long, exposing yourselves as something far less than faithful, obedient, and humble Catholics, to fool anyone with a lick o' sense.

-- (Hoo@deanie.com), March 13, 2005.

John F. Gecik (Hoo-deenie),

It is not I that post here under a fake name. You post almost everywhere with one or more fake names, accuse others of doing so, and then imply all sorts of further evil things about those with whom you disagree.

The only place on this board you post under your real name is on the Daily Saints thread where you hold forth as some perfect example of christian piety. I believe you do this out of pride, more than charity.

You are, if anything, disingenuous. In fact, you are a deceiver. I believe the phrase Christ used when confronted with such hypocracy was "Whited Sepulcher."

Yes. I will get to confession. I do 3-4 times a month. I bring my sons, and others too. Thanks. Its the best path to spiritual growth. Hope you can do the same.

Your friend, Patrick R. Delaney

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), March 15, 2005.