Why is the Marriage Tribunal Insisting I First Need a Divorce?

Canon Law Made Easy ^ | June 27, 2013 | Cathy Caridi, J.C.L.

[Weiss White]

Q: My sister wants an annulment so she can remarry in the Church. But when she began asking questions about how to go about it, she was immediately told that she can’t get an annulment unless she is divorced first. Can that possibly be true, or is her diocese doing something heretical? The Church is opposed to divorce, but then it pressures Catholics to get divorced… why is she being told she must get a divorce? –Denise

[old republic]

I imagine that a legal/civil annulment is something not found in most states. I’ve never heard of it in law school, nor in any state I’ve lived in. Can someone tell me more? Don’t most states have liberal divorce laws that let couples divorce easily if they both agree?

You are right. California was the first state to allow No-Fault Divorce in civil law beginning in 1969l After that other states quickly followed, and as of August 2010, all 50 states have added no-fault divorce laws to the books.

However, generally speaking annulments are unnecessary for civil marriages. An annulment is a declaration that a marriage was never valid to begin with and, therefore, never existed. A divorce is the actual dissolution of a validly existing marriage.

Almost all civil marriages are legally valid so an annulment is usually legally irrelevant. When most people want to divorce they have a legally existing marriage in the eyes of the state and therefore must get a civil divorce to dissolve the marriage. The only way to get the civil version of an annulment would be if a court found evidence that the marriage was not legally valid for some legal reason (e.g. one the parties was underage at the time of the marriage) then the court could declare the marriage void. This is very rare and and doesn't apply to most people who are looking to civilly remarry.

However, from a Catholic perspective there is a huge moral difference between an annulment and a divorce, because the Catholic Church teaches that a valid sacramental marriage between two baptized individuals is indissoluble. By Divine law, a Catholic can only marry if they have never been validly married, a validly married Catholic, can never marry again until the death of the spouse.

[Kansas58]

3) It's against Canon Law.
Not really. Both Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognize (a) the use of the Internal Forum for VARIOUS issues which cannot be resolved in the external forum (b) that the well-formed conscience takes authority over law and (c) that no one should be required to act against their own well-formed conscience, especially in matters of religion.
There is no Canon Law that expressly forbids the use of the internal forum solution for marrIed people who are separated from the sacraments.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=235519

I have given you quotes from Liguouri Press, and now from Catholic Answers, and from other Catholic organizations.

You play the part of the self-rightious Pharisee, wanting judgment and damnation on those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in these situations.

There are MANY Catholic authorities who disagree with you. More to the point, You can find NO Priest or Bishop or Cardinal or Pope who will say, unequivocally, that every person who goes through a divorce and then remarries, without benefit of a formal “External Forum” annulment, will be committing sin.

[old republic]

You are wrong in your interpretation, by simple logic.

Just repeating a falsehood over and over doesn't make it any truer. You couldn't even present a logical argument against my interpretation. You just ignore arguments against your position and assert your position is true because you say so. Your position is rejected by the Church as expressed in the crystal clear letter from the Vatican that you just ignored.

YOU are in danger of sin, as you are might very well be bearing false witness against your neighbors who have taken the rational approach that

No, under your logic I would be immune to sin because I know that I am right in the internal forum. In order to accuse me of sin, you would have to reject the internal forum argument. Otherwise it may be you who is falsely accusing me. I am obligated to warn you if I believe what you are teaching is in violation of God's moral law. I answer to God, not to you. If someone is leading others to sin, Christian Charity dictates that they be warned.

1.) A formal annulment would be SINFUL due to mentally unstable people who might well retaliate or act out on such formal process.

That is for the Church to decide not for you.

2.) The Tribunal does not “grant” or “perform” an annulment, therefore, if the “internal forum” or ones own conscience clearly dictates that the marriage was invalid, the formal process is not required.

Umm. Obviously. That's what an annulment is. An annulment is a declaration that a marriage was invalid. It is the petition for a declaration of nullity that is granted not the annulment itself. However, all Catholics are bound to follow the code of canon law, which says that no one who attempts a second marriage ceremony without a declaration of nullity as long as the presumed spouse still lives. All Catholics are bound to obey these laws. Your position is condemned by the Church as CLEARLY demonstrated in the letter you ignored in my last post.

THIS IS CHURCH DOCTRINE, and you are mixing apples and oranges when you say it is not.

Then why can't you find one authoritative declaration from the Vatican or the Magisterium to support your position. You just assert that you are right, because you say so. Your position is counter to the teaching of the Church. I provided documentation that demonstrates that your position is incorrect. You can provide nothing authoritative in support of your position.

[old republic]

You play the part of the self-rightious Pharisee, wanting judgment and damnation on those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in these situations.

You are the one accusing people of sin not me. I made know judgement on the state of people's souls nor of their final judgment, because I don't know those things. I only pointed out what the Church's official teachings on this subject are.

Your position whether you realize it or not, is objectively hypocritical. You say that something is not a sin if a person believes that their position is right on the internal forum, but you pretend to know what is going on in everyone's internal forum as if you were God. You then pass judgement on those people while saying it is a sin to do so. That makes your position hypocritical. So before you accuse other people, not for accusing you of sin, but of merely disagreeing with your position, why don't you take the beam out of your own eye.

[old republic]

I have given you quotes from Liguouri Press, and now from Catholic Answers, and from other Catholic organizations. But interestingly, you provide no authoritative sources from the Church itself. I don't want people's private theological musings. I want something from the magisterium. I gave you is from the Vatican and thus carries the weight of the magisterium.

I am not out to get you, Kansas58, but I will refute you or point out inconsistencies if I think you're wrong.

[Kansas58]

I did try to edit the post you responded to, it was to say “May” or “might” -—
My concern is that many in the Church tend to pass judgment on situations that they know little or nothing about.
I apologize that my edit was sloppy and did not take before I posted.

[Kansas58]

OK, here is my rational argument:

The Church has presented opinions on using the “internal forum” on matters of remarriage, often called “pastoral solutions”.

The Church, to the best of my knowledge, has never admonished or defrocked any Priest for using the “internal forum” through the confessional and private counsel, to arrange a “pastoral solution” with a Parishioner who finds himself or herself in an “irregular” marriage or situation.

The Confessional is inviolate. Not even the Church can inquire as to what was discussed in such a setting. I would agree that in most cases the formal annulment process should be examined and attempted if appropriate.

However, there are countless cases where mental illness, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, child abuse and other issues would make the formal annulment process dangerous and even sinful, and perhaps vindictive.

In those situations, some would claim that celibacy for life or until the death of the former spouse would be appropriate. Many disagree.

My response again is that the Church discourages the abuse of the “internal forum” but in many cases there is no other option. And the Church has NEVER instructed any Catholic Priest to reverse a prior “Pastoral Solution” or “Internal Forum” exception.

[cva66snipe]

Your opinion is premised upon an incorrect understanding of what the Church actually teaches. As to procreation, [it] has nothing to do with ability to and everything to do with openness to with acknowledgement that miracles as well can happen IF one is open to God's will. As well, looking at 'medical advances' the Church remains steadfast in teaching that evil means regardless noble intent remain evil and prohibited. NO ends justify evil means.

Here is what I was refering to for clarification purposes. Bishop denies impotent paraplegic church wedding

[DBeers]

You do not know what you are talking about.

I know EXACTLY what I talk about. It's laid out in black and white by the Vatican.

Any idiot can write a book and call it 'Catholic' teaching. You have been led astray.

[Kansas58]

That book, “With Open Arms” is often distributed, in nearly all Catholic Diocese, in classes held for divorced Catholics. That book has a valid Imprimatur

What you have posted from various sources relates to OPINIONS and DISPLEEASURE from some Church officials concerning the matter of the “Internal Forum”.

The bottom line is that the Vatican, under direct authority of the Pope, has NEVER prohibited the use of the “Internal Forum” or the “Pastoral Solution” for divorced Catholics who wish to remarry in the Church. The Church has NEVER defrocked or disciplined any Priest for using the Confessional and the “Pastoral Solution”.

If a Priest feels that those divorced and remarried Catholics, that YOU disapprove of, disservice to receive Communion and be fully within the Church, IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

The conversations took place in a Confessional setting, after reflection and examination of conscience.

Yes, the Internal Forum is open for abuse.

I suggest you look at the Kennedy family, and other situations, if you wish to discuss the abuses of the “External Forum” or Formal Annulment.

Again, there is NO prohibition stated. You have an opinion and advice from Ratzinger. That is his opinion. Also, The Pope agreed that the Internal Forum solution should be discouraged.

However, neither Ratzinger or the Pope prohibited the Pastoral Solution or the Internal Forum.

You are a judgmental, “law and order”, “rules and regs” Catholic who would have fit in quite well with the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.

What do you suggest the divorced Catholic do, if faced with the issues of mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, violent tendencies and other problems among the ex or other members of the family that might have to answer to the Tribunal? Are such Catholics to remain single for the rest of their lives?

[Kansas58]

“If a Priest feels that those divorced and remarried Catholics, that YOU disapprove of, deserve to receive Communion and be fully within the Church, IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!”

(Sorry, corrected my post)

[DBeers]

If a Priest feels that those divorced and remarried Catholics, that YOU disapprove of...

My approval or disapproval is irrelevant. However, you do bring up a good point that you seem to overlook regarding marriage and the false solution.

IF as you suggest it was valid and good THEN why the secrecy? Marriage is a public institution, a celebration of many things instituted by God. It is not some backroom agreement made by a few special 'feeling' people made behind closed doors with a wink nod.