I have a question regarding divorce / annulment in the Catholic church. I am a baptized Catholic and have received all Sacraments. I wish to marry a non-Catholic in the Catholic Church. However, he has been married before. He was married at the Court House with no religious ceremony. He also was never baptized (in any faith). Is it a requirement for him to receive an annulment in order for us to be married in the Catholic Church?

I see conflicting information on this subject matter, mainly dealing with his "no faith" issue. Also, what are the consequences for me for marrying him?

-- Andrea (acon4664@hotmail.com), May 12, 2004

Answers

Bump to New Answers to invite comment

-- (bump@bump.bump), May 12, 2004.

Is it a requirement for him to receive an annulment in order for us to be married in the Catholic Church?

Yes. He should start the process as soon as possible.

If his ex-wife was Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox), then he has easy grounds for the annulment based on "lack of canonical form" of the marriage. If his ex-wife had herself been married prior to that, then he has a documentary case annulment based on "prior bond." Otherwise, a formal case annulment will be required based on psychological grounds, e.g., defective consent.

Also, what are the consequences for me for marrying him? Assuming the annulment goes through, you will need to get a dispensation from the bishop for "disparity of cult" (Catholic marrying a non-baptized person). This is fairly easy to obtain.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

Amen, Mark God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 12, 2004.

If he was married civily, not in the Church, and isn't even Catholic, all he has to get is divorced civily, theres no annulment necessary. The dispensation from the bishop is necessary, but Mark, he wasn't married in the Catholic Church so why would you say he needs to get an annulment?

-- dude (dude@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

The Catholic Church recognizes civil marriages as valid provided that neither party is Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. However, the Catholic Church does not recognize civil divorce, period.

So according to the Catholic Church, the man is still considered to be married to his first wife, and as such not eligible for marriage to Andrea.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

Mark is absolutely correct.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

6. When one considers the role of law in marital crises, all too often one thinks almost exclusively of processes that ratify the annulment of marriage or the dissolution of the bond. At times, this mentality extends even to canon law, so that it appears as the avenue for resolving the marital problems of the faithful in a way that does not offend one's conscience. There is indeed some truth to this, but these eventual solutions must be examined in a way that the indissolubility of the bond, whenever it turns out to be validly contracted, continues to be safeguarded. The attitude of the Church is, in contrast, favorable to convalidating, where possible, marriages that are otherwise null (cf. CIC, c.1676; CCEO, c.1362). It is true that the declaration of the nullity of a marriage, based on the truth acquired by means of a legitimate process, restores peace to the conscience, but such a declaration—and the same holds true for the dissolution of a marriage that is ratum non consummatum or a dissolution based upon the privilege of the —must be presented and effected in an ecclesial context that is totally favorable to the indissolubility of marriage and to family founded upon it. The spouses themselves must be the first to realize that only in the loyal quest for the truth can they find their true good, without excluding a priori the possible convalidation of a union that, although it is not yet a sacramental marriage, contains elements of good, for themselves and their children, that should be carefully evaluated in conscience before reaching a different decision.

JP 2

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 13, 2004.

I think it's important to remember that the way God works in our lives is mystery.

If the two were married civilly, then the church will look at the union to assert that it was merely an agreement or contract between two people, not a sacramental union.

It doesn't matter that they were married in the church or without the church. What does matter is if they were married before God and by God. The sacrament of Marriage is not actually conferred by a Priest. The Sacrament is conferred one upon the other. If is in the church, the priest serves as a witness before God.

If the two were married outside the church, it could still be sacramental in nature. That is what the church will look at.

Let the process run its course, offer your wishes to God in prayer and give the matter the time and patience that the church requires. If your cause is successful, the union you will share and your life together in the church, will be sacramental blessing or a "sign of God grace" for all of us.

Peace be with you

-- Leon (pookieboy@jmj.com), May 16, 2004.

Both Mark and Father Mike are incorrect in that no formal case based on defective consent should even be started unless it is clearly evident there was a serious psychological anomaly present at the time of the former marriage. The anomaly must have been serious. So serious as to render incapable one of the parties to think or to will. Please see JPII allocution to the Rota in 1987.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), May 17, 2004.

Pat,

I'm sure you're not suggesting that psychological grounds are the only grounds? I never suggested that there were or were not. There's also error, simulation, conditional consent - these are not psychological grounds at all but are grounds for an annullment. I was merely commenting on the fact that if this couple wishes to marry in the Catholic Church they must first receive an annullment - on whatever grounds.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 17, 2004.

Father Mike,

I'm following upon Mark's comment above that defective consent based on psychological grounds should be pursued.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), May 17, 2004.

Pat,

Okay, I wasn't agree with that comment above actually I'd missed it or I would have disagreed with it as well. What I was agreeing with was his contention that a formal process was required.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 17, 2004.

I meant "psychological" in the broader sense, that in a formal case, the tribunal needs to figure out what was going on inside the mind of at least one of the spouses. (As opposed to a documentary case, where all the evidence is there in black and white.) Of course, there are certainly many formal case grounds that don't fall into the narrower sense of involving or requiring some sort of psychosis.

Pat, I looked though the 1987 rotal allocution but could not find the section you refer to about not starting psychological cases unless it is already clearly evident that the grounds are present. Most people won't know if they have grounds for annulment until they have an initial interview with their priest, fill out the questionaire, and have their answers reviewed by a canonist. This is the process that Andrea's prospective fiance should begin as soon as possible.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 17, 2004.