Good question! Another good one would be, why don’t more people seek legal annulments?
Hoo boy! First the state makes a mockery out of marriage, and now the Church?
The divorce is to satisfy the state requirements. The Church cannot annul a marriage recognized by the state.
A Church annulment has no legal standing unless accompanied by a civil divorce. Similarly, when you get married in the Church, you also need to get a marriage license from the state, without which your marriage would not be legally recognized.
Is she just assuming that she meets any situation justfying an annulment, or is the church?
Because the church (a) doesn’t want to be civilly liable for alienation of affection by declaring a marriage didn’t exist when the state says it does, and (b) doesn’t want to be accessory to the commission of a felony (bigamy) if or when she remarries.
The answer to this question is given at the linked article.
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/06/27/why-is-the-marriage-tribunal-insisting-i-first-need-a-divorce
It’s one or the other - can’t be both.
It’s usually much easier to do a civil divorce than to do a civil annulment. In most states the court has no discretion and has to grant a divorce if either party wants it. In my state (Kansas) a civil annulment is discretionary. For example, it makes little difference what the reason is, if the marriage of voidable rather than void ab initio, and there is a child, the court probably will not grant an annulment.
The Church believes that the marriage contract/covenant, is with God, not the state. If the state says that you are still legally married, then the Church cannot grant the annulment. It would be very confusing. Although it is possible to have a common law marriage in Kansas, it is not possible to have a common law annulment or divorce.
ANNULMENT
Official declaration by competent authority that, for lawful reasons, a previous act or contract was invalid and consequently null and void. In ecclesiastical law, annulments mainly apply to marriage contracts over which the Church has the right to determine their validity. (Etym. Latin an-, to + nullus, none; annullare, to annihilate, to annul.)
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
For later.
Wondered this myself. Though I think everyone agrees that the US Church often uses annulments as a Catholic divorce court.
First, a civil, government “divorce” makes clear that the couple seriously does not intend to behave, in the future, as a couple. It might not be “required” under Church law, but I do not think the Church should waste much of its resources or time on marriages that have failed in the Civil, government courts.
Next? The Catholic Church does NOT consider divorce a sin. The problem is in remarriage, if the original marriage was indeed “sacramental”.
Furthermore, and there will be MANY ignorant posts which will try to refute me on this, but I know that I am correct:
An official annulment from the Church Tribunal is NOT required if the conscientious Catholic, in the “internal form” (your own conscience) is convinced that the marriage was not valid.
This is Church law. Anyone who contests what I just posted is very ignorant on the subjects. But contest they will, as some seem to insist on formal annulments, no matter what.
Use common sense. A formal annulment says, in effect, that the marriage NEVER happened in the eyes of God. The formal annulment does not REVERSE or UNDO the marriage contract, it states, factually, that no contract ever existed.
If the conscientious Catholic already knows this fact?
No formal process is required, but it is suggested that you discuss it with your local Priest, in order to avoid any possible objections from ignorant Catholics. (Also known as “avoiding scandal”)
I suspect it's gone up a bit ...