Anyone know about dissolving Catholic marriages?

[vtdiamond]

My FI was previously married in a catholic wedding, although FI is Jewish, so not sure how that all worked out.

FI ended up getting a divorce back in 2008 and has basically never seen or spoken to his ex-wife since. It now appears his ex-wife is engaged and would like to have a catholic church wedding. So, the Roman Catholic diocese has send a letter to FI's mother requesting FI's contact information (not sure how they found his mother's info and not his).  They said that they would like to contact him about dissolving the previous marriage so that ex-wife can get married again in the catholic church.

What is involved in dissolving a marriage?  Will he just have to sign something, does it need to be done in person??

[meltoine]

The marriage tribunal for her diocese has to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not the marriage was valid. In order to do that, they have to talk to all the people involved. They'll want to ask him questions about the marriage prep they did before their wedding, his feelings at that time, and the ceremony itself, to determine if anything was lacking in their intent or the form of their ceremony that could make their marriage invalid. They will also probably question their witnesses (best man and MOH) to get some more information on his mindset as well as his ex's.

His participation will be minimal - it will probably take less than 30 minutes to answer the questions and he'll be notified by mail of the final decision.

[Deleted]

From what I understand, it depends on the church/diocese. Some dioceses focus mainly on the reports of the people requesting the annulment and do not worry so much about the responses from the spouses. Other dioceses are very demanding about details from the spouses as well, even if there is clear evidence of abuse or harmful behavior involved.

My dad and stepmother looked into this. They were asked to provide in-depth, very personal information regarding their marriages and why they failed (stepmother was due to alcoholic husband who drank himself into a nursing home, my dad/mom's marriage had a lot of long-standing issues they tried to work through for 27yrs). They wanted reports from the ex's (even though the ex-husband has practically no memory left). My dad and stepmother decided it was not worth the pain of going through those details and were not sure how cooperative the ex's would be anyway, so they're now simply living in sin without a 'church' marriage.

[vtdiamond]

Interesting, thanks for the info ladies.

So what are the "valid" reasons for them to dissolve/annul a marriage?

[kaylie]

My grandfather did it to my grandmother after thirty years of marriage and three children. I can't imagine the standards are that strict as far as reasons being valid.

[jenjen]

I was called as a "witness" for my ex aunt dissolving her marriage from my non-Catholic uncle. She called me and said a priest would call to ask a few questions. This retired priest called me and was super rude but asked why their marriage failed (she was having an emotional affair) but that wasn't for me to say so I said I was unsure as I was not one of the 2 people in the marriage. Somehow we discussed my uncle not being catholic and not being baptized. He questioned why my deceased grandpa didn't baptize him. I'm really not sure of the point of the interview but maybe just for witnesses to verify my uncle wasn't baptized. Maybe that makes it go faster than 2 catholic people?

[teflep]

Feb 20, 2013 13:42:01 GMT -5 vtdiamond said:

Interesting, thanks for the info ladies.

So what are the "valid" reasons for them to dissolve/annul a marriage?

Mutual mistake (religious differences), misrepresentations (said wanted kids before, changd mind), duress, etc. the first would likely be the one for this.

[doobeedoo]

We dealt with a similar situation 10+ years ago when I got engaged to my now DH.  I was Catholic at the time.  Never married.  DH was nothing (non-denominational Christian, no religious upbringing to speak of) but had been married before.  In the Catholic church.

His marriage lasted like 5 minutes but his ex-wife had already long been remarried and when we went to my church to get the scoop, were led to believe that it would be a very involved process, with no guarantee of annulment.  Plus it costs big $.  Because of the lack of guarantee, and the fact that getting in touch with his ex was an extremely unappealing thing to do, we opted to basically elope and forget about the church bit.

I agree with the pp that it will depend on how the diocese choose to handle it, but it won't likely be as simple as signing a piece of paper.  And it costs money--I can't remember how much, but it is significant--but I assume his ex would be footing that bill?

[vtdiamond]

Yup, would definitely be his ex footing the bill.

We're actually getting married at city hall and then doing a destination wedding, so totally non-denominational!

None of this matters to us. I've just told him to be respectful so she can get the wedding she wants, as long as the process isn't time consuming and excessive for him.

[giantsgirl]

If they actually got married in a catholic church, the process is much more involved than if they were just married by an officiant on the beach or something.  But, in either case, he won't have to do anything in person.  Based on my experience, he doesn't *have* to do anything at all and his ex can still get the annullment granted. 

DH was previously married in a catholic ceremony and he went through the process so we could get married in a catholic church.  They just had to reach out to his ex, she didn't have to respond (and she didn't actually respond).  DH had to do all of the actual work (have meetings, fill out piles of paperwork, pay the fees, write the long essays they asked for about the relationship, etc, etc, etc).  He started the process, they reached out to her, waited a pre-determined amount of time, she didn't respond which indicates she wasn't contesting anything, and they went through the rest of the process, and he was eventually granted an annullment. 

If they weren't married in a church, it is just a quick form that has to be filled out that basically says the marriage wasn't valid in the eyes of church for that reason alone. 

[womet]

DH's ex asked him to start the paperwork for this. She'd been married before (to her now husband) and used her 1-time-only annulment with the church. So she wanted DH to start the process. He told her (in so many words) to go fuck herself and that he wasn't annuling a marriage that resulted in their DD.

[Deleted]

My mom was just on the other side of this as she and her husband wanted to get married in the Catholic church so her husband had to annul his last marriage in the church.  It took a LONG ASS TIME for some reason.  I know his ex-wife did not have to come in person, there was a lot of paperwork.  She might have been spitefully dragging her feet about it as well.  

[lys]

Feb 20, 2013 13:42:01 GMT -5 vtdiamond said:

Interesting, thanks for the info ladies. 

They are talking about the validity of a "spiritual" marriage according to Catholic standards- not the legal validity. Mostly this is a matter of paperwork, and interview of the person asking for the annulment.

[hisno1girl]

Our church/diocese did not charge us a single penny when DH went through the annulment process.

The only reason they wanted his ex-wife's information was to send her a notice of the annulment.

He had to provide letters from relatives/friends that knew him at the time he got married (DH is Catholic and was married in a Catholic church) but no one from the Diocese ever called them and asked them questions.

We started the process in November, 2008 and the annulment was granted in February, 2010.

[hisno1girl]

Feb 20, 2013 14:15:27 GMT -5 womet said:

DH's ex asked him to start the paperwork for this. She'd been married before (to her now husband) and used her 1-time-only annulment with the church. So she wanted DH to start the process. He told her (in so many words) to go fuck herself and that he wasn't annuling a marriage that resulted in their DD.

Just an FYI, an annulment doesn't negate the legality of children born to the marriage. 

[karinothing]

"Funny" story about this. My mom was Catholic. When she met my dad he was jewish. He converted to Catholicism. They wanted to get married in the Church but my dad had been married before. At the time, my parents had to right the vatican and ask for their permission. They ended up getting permission to marry in the Church because they found that my dad was Jewish when he got his divorce and therefore, "didn't know any better."

[Melissa W.]

Feb 20, 2013 14:58:11 GMT -5 hisno1girl said:

Feb 20, 2013 14:15:27 GMT -5 womet said:

DH's ex asked him to start the paperwork for this. She'd been married before (to her now husband) and used her 1-time-only annulment with the church. So she wanted DH to start the process. He told her (in so many words) to go fuck herself and that he wasn't annuling a marriage that resulted in their DD.

Just an FYI, an annulment doesn't negate the legality of children born to the marriage. 

True but I can see how this could sound to womet's husband. 

[hisno1girl]

Feb 20, 2013 15:14:13 GMT -5 Melissa W. said:

Feb 20, 2013 14:58:11 GMT -5 hisno1girl said:

Just an FYI, an annulment doesn't negate the legality of children born to the marriage. 

True but I can see how this could sound to womet's husband. 

I understand. My ex-husband said something along the same lines because he & I had a daughter together.

[womet]

hisno1girl, thanks for making that clear for othes. While it doesn't negate the legality of children born to the marriage, he didn't think that was the right message to send to their DD. She had a really hard time with their divorce, and H didn't think this was a good idea to add to it.

[rikki]

My former boss attempted to do this but it took over a year and was super invasive so she gave up.

[meltoine]

An annulment is not a dissolution. It's a determination that they were never validly married to begin with. In order to be validly married, they had to have had intent to be married, freedom to marry, openness to children, and proper form.

Intent to be married means that they were both mentally healthy and fully understood what marriage entailed, and that they wanted to be married and intended to be married according to the tenets of the Church.

Freedom to marry means that neither of them was already married (including un-annulled marriages that ended in divorce), they were both old enough to marry, and neither one was coerced.

Openness to children means that they intended to welcome any children God gave them.

Proper form means that the ceremony was conducted properly according to the Rite of Marriage. In your FI's case, they would have needed a dispensation from the local bishop for "disparity of cult" since he is not Christian. They had to have been married in a church by a priest in good standing, and they had to have the proper ceremony - exchange of consent, exchange of vows, and exchange of rings.

If any of these condition were not met at the time of the wedding, the marriage could be considered null. The most common reasons annulments are granted are intent and form. Annulments based on intent are usually granted when one party was mentally unstable at the time of the wedding due to depression or other mental illness, or alcoholism/drug addiction. Annulments for form are common among Catholics who chose not to get married in the Church. If a Catholic has a beach wedding, for example, the marriage can be annuled because the ceremony didn't take place in a church.

[caramia17]

So my H was married previously not in the Catholic church. His ex was Catholic. She did not have the marriage recorded on her baptismal certificate, so this was grounds for a simple annulment, which was pretty easy and cheap. If he and his ex had both been non Catholic Christians married in a civil or church ceremony, it would have involved a tribunal. If she had recorded the marriage on her baptismal certificate, it would have involved a tribunal. If they had married in a Catholic ceremony, it would have involved a tribunal. Etc.

Years after we were married she wanted to get married again in the Catholic Church and asked for a copy of the annulment, so I guess it all worked out.

[Deleted]

Feb 20, 2013 15:14:13 GMT -5 Melissa W. said:

Feb 20, 2013 14:58:11 GMT -5 hisno1girl said:

Just an FYI, an annulment doesn't negate the legality of children born to the marriage. 

True but I can see how this could sound to womet's husband. 

My bff's dad annulled a 20 year marriage to her mom so he could marry the woman he left the marriage for. My friend was super upset that her dad basically said that it wasn't a real marriage. Like her whole childhood was a lie.  Yes she's a bit dramatic but I see where those thoughts come from. 

[Melissa W.]

Feb 20, 2013 18:43:55 GMT -5 meltoine said:

An annulment is not a dissolution. It's a determination that they were never validly married to begin with. In order to be validly married, they had to have had intent to be married, freedom to marry, openness to children, and proper form.

Intent to be married means that they were both mentally healthy and fully understood what marriage entailed, and that they wanted to be married and intended to be married according to the tenets of the Church.

Freedom to marry means that neither of them was already married (including un-annulled marriages that ended in divorce), they were both old enough to marry, and neither one was coerced.

Openness to children means that they intended to welcome any children God gave them.

Proper form means that the ceremony was conducted properly according to the Rite of Marriage. In your FI's case, they would have needed a dispensation from the local bishop for "disparity of cult" since he is not Christian. They had to have been married in a church by a priest in good standing, and they had to have the proper ceremony - exchange of consent, exchange of vows, and exchange of rings.

If any of these condition were not met at the time of the wedding, the marriage could be considered null. The most common reasons annulments are granted are intent and form. Annulments based on intent are usually granted when one party was mentally unstable at the time of the wedding due to depression or other mental illness, or alcoholism/drug addiction. Annulments for form are common among Catholics who chose not to get married in the Church. If a Catholic has a beach wedding, for example, the marriage can be annuled because the ceremony didn't take place in a church.

I thought a beach wedding wasn't valid to begin with.. The reason I say this is that I was married by a JP to my non Catholic/baptized husband. I am going to get our marriage (albeit 8 years later)  recognized through convalidation. 

[Melissa W.]

Feb 21, 2013 20:25:30 GMT -5 operagirl said:

It looks like
Meltoine
has given you the official facts. My annulment was in the late 80's, so I hope it is not as horrible now. I was accused of being immature, not being a real catholic believer, using birth control, and more, and it was all very ugly. As if, my exH ever went to church. ( He goes daily now.) My 8 year old told me I would be getting papers. Then "my" priest assigned to represent me called me and read the accusations. All paperwork was addressed to miss maiden name, and he called me by that name, even though I was not changing it back. He advised me to prepare for witnesses to malign me at the tribunal.  I fought back for a few months and finally just gave in.  It was important to my H to be able to receive sacraments and eventually remarry (his secretary) in the church.  It really was not important to me as a cafeteria catholic. I'll probably go to hell for the letter I wrote to the Archbishop afterwards. 

In your case, probably just signing paperwork. 

that sucks. 

[mbcdefg]

Feb 22, 2013 9:59:43 GMT -5 Melissa W. said:

Feb 20, 2013 18:43:55 GMT -5 meltoine said:

Annulments for form are common among Catholics who chose not to get married in the Church. If a Catholic has a beach wedding, for example, the marriage can be annuled because the ceremony didn't take place in a church.

I thought a beach wedding wasn't valid to begin with.. The reason I say this is that I was married by a JP to my non Catholic/baptized husband. I am going to get our marriage (albeit 8 years later)  recognized through convalidation. 

Exactly. It's easier to get the annulment because the marriage wasn't valid (to the Church) in the first place. You don't have to prove anything, as opposed to people who went through the Church process and were of sound mind, etc., when they were married.

I know people who've had convalidation ceremonies, but I don't know anything about the process.

[meltoine]

Melissa W. - it's not valid to begin with. No annulled marriages are valid to begin with, as you can't get a valid marriage annulled. An annulment, or declaration of nullity, is a finding that some requirement was not met at the time of the ceremony and therefore, the marriage was not valid.

If a couple meets all the requirements their marriage is valid and can never be annulled. If you are validly married at the time if your ceremony (and assuming you are able to have sex at least once in your married lives thereafter, as that's a requirement too) no matter what happens later you are married to that person until one of you dies, according to the Church. Annulments are not granted based on anything that happens after the wedding and consummation take place, only on what happens (or fails to happen) before.

If you have been legally married before and want to marry another person, you have to show proof that your first marriage was not valid, i.e. an annulment, before you can get married in the Church. In cases of beach weddings and the like, you just have to show that you didn't have proper form and therefore, were not married. It's very easy in those cases most of the time, barring a crazy ex who stalls the process or something.

[womet]

@songforyou, there are lots of stories about that one. I'll tell you some at the GTG.