I'd read somewhere that while the Western Church relies on a "juridical" approach to the bond of Matrimony (Tribunal, Canonical judges and lawyers, sworn testimony, etc.) the Eastern Church traditionally took a "pastoral" approach: that is, one's pastor could make the determination of whether the original attempted marriage was in fact sacramentally binding, or whether there was some defect from the beginning which would have made the vows null.
True or false?
Moreover: let's say you're convinced in your conscience that your initial attempted marriage was invalid, BUT your ex-spouse has either disappeared and can't be found, OR flatly refuses to cooperate with the annulment process (refuses to fill out a questionnaire, refuses to be interviewed, whatever) and therefore the process can't proceed.
At this point, IIRC, there was this principle called the "internal forum" which came into play. That is if the Marriage Tribunal's "external forum" is stalled permanently, through no fault of yours, your own testimony can be enough to authorize your pastor to regularize a second marriage.
I probably said this all wrong. Honest ignorance on my part. Can somebody fill me in?
(No, I'm not contemplating divorcing Mr. Don-o. He's my once-in-a-lifetime spouse, and I'm his; and boy, am I grateful for it.)
The process does proceed even without response from the former spouse. It just makes it more difficult without that testimony. Without the former spouse's testimony, the petitioner really needs some other input, such as witness statements, medical records, etc.
And, there is no substitute for an official declaration of nullity.
However, if the annulment is initially denied, one can appeal to Rome.
"the Eastern Church traditionally took a "pastoral" approach: that is, one's pastor could make the determination of whether the original attempted marriage was in fact sacramentally binding, or whether there was some defect from the beginning which would have made the vows null."
I can't speak to the Latin situation, but as I understand it, in Orthodoxy one needs an ecclesiastical divorce which is obtained from a tribunal of a diocese or metropolitinate with the approval of the presiding hierarch. These divorces are a matter of economia and economia is the province of a bishop, not a pariah priest. My experience in the GOA, and frankly I see it nearly every Sunday, is that Orthodox people who divorce and remarry without an ecclesiastical divorce are denied communion and all the other sacraments.
OK, I'll give it a stab.
In my view, the final answer to your question is "false", but how you built the question was "true." :-)
The western church does take a more juridical approach to many things, while the eastern churches does take a more pastoral approach.
In general, the eastern churches just don't put the same level of emphasis on canon law as the western church. The eastern canon law isn't as developed as the western, and as a practical matter, you just don't hear about canon law much in the eastern churches. My personal opinion, which I think is shared by many eastern Catholics, is that an over emphasis on the details of canon law simply misses the point.
As regards annulment, I was curious and did some research. Anthony Dragani, an eastern Catholic expert who answers questions regularly on EWTN's Q/A, answered the question as follows: "the Eastern Catholic Churches do indeed have an annulment system. Historically this has not always been the case, but it is today." I would add that there is a formal process and a tribunal, at least in my church.