My questions is: My boyfriend and I are looking at getting married. Both of us are Catholic, though we were away from the church for years, have returned together. It is obvious to us that our relationship is a gift from God. He was married previously in a civil ceremony and has two children from the marriage, though it is rocky the entire 3 years they were married. Throughout the civil marriage he never tried to make it a catholic marriage and is not acknowledged in the catholic church. He has since divorced for 4 years now and we would like to be married in the catholic church. My question finally is... does he need to look at getting an annullment for the civil marriage? And what would the process be for that? Thank you, Laurie

-- laurie green (klauriegreen@hotmail.com), January 19, 2005

Answers

Response to catholics with one party previously married in civil union

Yes he does. All previous marriages require an annulment before one can marry in the Catholic Church. Your parish priest can guide you in filing for annulment. Or you can contact the tribunal office directly. It should be listed in the phone book under "Diocese of ...".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 19, 2005.

Not exactly true Paul. His previous Marriage does not need to be investigated and declared null by the Tribunal as there is no question that the marriage is invalid due to lack of canonical form. He does need to file the Lack of Canonical Form paper and declare that he has never formally defected from the Catholic Church nor sought to have the civil marriage validated (which Laurie indicates he hasn't).

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 13, 2005.

He does need to file the Lack of Canonical Form paper

Right, Father, but "file" it with whom? Merely with his pastor? You may be doing things differently in New Brunswick, Canada, but in the U.S. dioceses where Paul and I live, the paperwork is "filed" with a tribunal, who then rule on the validity or nullity. I have seen this with my own eyes. A parish priest is not qualified to do this on his own. I pray that you have not been trying to do this without the involvement of your tribunal.

-- (coriolanus@lordstown.com), February 13, 2005.

So he simply has to fill out a form, mail it in, and then act as though he was never married? Without receiving any authoritative response from the Church?? Like maybe, "yes, we agree"?? You are right in saying there is apparently "no question" about the lack of canonical form in this case; but wrong if you are saying that each person can decide this for themselves. What a can of worms that would be!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 13, 2005.

By "file" I mean with the Marriage Tribunal of course. Yes the Tribunal makes the ruling, but it is not a full blown investigation - witnesses are not called to testify to the circumstances surrounding the marriage, it doesn't go to the Defender of the Bond (as none is presumed to exist), etc.

Lack of Canonical Form is usually pretty cut and dry.

Does that clear it up for you?

Canon Law is Canon Law and knows no (civil) boundaries.

Somebody has been doing some investigating - I do not recall revealing my location.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 13, 2005.

Yes, a full investigation is not required, and the process is usually relatively brief, but the end result is still a decree of nullity, without which the person/couple cannot marry. That's what confused me about your previous statement, "His previous Marriage does not need to be investigated and declared null by the Tribunal". As I understand it, "investigated" - no; but "declared null by the Tribunal" - yes.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 14, 2005.

"Amen" to Paul for his comments.

"Gratias" to Father Paul for the correction of what he stated earlier.

Father, do not be troubled by "some investigating" being done. It is only appropriate for a forum regular, on behalf of everyone else, to seek to determine the legitimacy or reliability of the comments being posted by a newcomer who identifies himself as a priest. As a result of my checking, all here can now rest assured that you are a priest, a parish pastor, in good standing.

I now hope that, in addition to being knowledgable on marriage matters, you stand with Pope John Paul II in espousing 100% "orthodox Catholic" beliefs on faith and morals, that you nurture your flock courageously (teaching them even what is unpopular, such as "Humanae Vitae," without regard to loss of income or parishioners), and that you celebrate Mass and all the Sacraments in perfect accordance with the Holy See's liturgical norms. If you do all these things, you are a priest whom I can totally admire and pray for. If not, you are a priest for whom I can pray for even harder.

Coriolanus

-- (coriolanus@lordstown.com), February 14, 2005.

Coriolanus,

"without regard to loss of income or parishioners"

I have said it on more than one occassion in the presence of priests and perhaps even my bishop - I will never prostitute the Church or the Faith.

Pray harder for me anyway, I can use it as well as any other.

E-mail me the details of your "investigation" - where and how.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.

“a forum regular”? I haven’t seen the name “coriolanus” here before. If you ARE a forum regular, why disguise yourself with a new “handle”? Especially when you take it on yourself to “investigate” other post-ers and pontificate on their putative lack of orthodoxy. None of us asked you to “investigate” Fr Paul on our behalf. We had no reason to suspect him. And the orthodoxy of what he has posted here speaks for itself.

Your below-the-belt crack about “loss of income” is totally uncalled for. No priest has a high income. Most if not all dioceses distribute the clergy collections equally among all priests of the diocese, so it doesn’t matter which priests are more “popular”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 14, 2005.

Steve,

The "income" crack was aimed at parish collections in general I believe, not for the priest's pocket. He was making a valid point - some priests do not want to drive the parish "contributors" away, and will compromise whatever to make it so.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.

Fair enough Father, I will view that remark as charitably as you do. God bless you and thank you for coming to our forum. I assure you the vast majority of us here appreciate your presence.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 14, 2005.

Fr. Paul, I thank you for your charitable reply and for your participation here. A solid priest has been needed here on many occasions. In the forum's seven years, a few good priests have dropped in for "cameo" appearances, but have (regrettably) disappeared. I hope that you will not join them in departing. I will indeed pray harder for you.

Father, you definitely took my comment (about income) to mean just what I had in mind. It is unfortunate that Steve was in a bad mood (or is just an ornery kind of guy?) and took my words wrongly. I will address him now.

If you ARE a forum regular, why disguise yourself with a new “handle”?

Because I wished to do so, and the forum's rules permitted it. WHO I am was not important. What I had to say was important.

None of us asked you to “investigate” Fr Paul on our behalf. We had no reason to suspect him.

I didn't need to be "asked" by you or by anyone else. I had my own free will. Moreover, I never said that I "suspected" Fr. Paul. I just chose to do what I knew, from past experience, was prudent. You see, although the forum has had some good priests visiting, it has also had some bad ones and even people pretending to be priests. What I did was not some kind of elaborate, probing investigation. Just something very superficial and simple, something anyone could have done.

And the orthodoxy of what he has posted here speaks for itself.

Please read what people actually write, Steve, without having defensive, knee-jerk reactions. Back off and calm down. I never questioned "the orthodoxy of what he has posted." But he had not yet posted everything that he believes. I therefore merely expressed a hopeful prayer that Father would always post the orthodox truth and reliable guidance on disciplinary matters, marriage situations, and the like. (Please note that if Fr. Paul had been a dissenter reading my message, he might then have chosen to absent himself, not wanting to face opposition here. I am pleased that he will be staying.)

Cor

-- (coriolanus@lordstown.com), February 15, 2005.