Annulment Answers

Annulments are confusing.

Last

month I tried to give you a general overview of what annulment isn’t

(“Catholic divorce”) and what it is (a determination that a sacramental

marriage never took place). Then I promised you answers to a whole

bunch of questions.

In the month since that

column, most of the questions I’ve received from all of you have

centered around the question of non-Catholics and annulment. Who needs

an annulment? Who doesn’t? So I thought I’d give that question a

detailed answer this month.

If someone wasn’t

married in a Catholic ceremony, do they still need an annulment? Well,

maybe. It depends on whether they were Catholic or not at the time of

the ceremony.

At the heart of this question is

another question, “Do non-Catholic wedding ceremonies confer a

sacramental marriage?” Up until the Middle Ages or so, this wasn’t such

a big question because Catholicism was the only Christian religion, so

pretty much everybody in the western world was Catholic, and thus so

were most of the weddings. But then came the Protestant Reformation,

and suddenly the Church was encountering the question of whether

weddings performed in Lutheran churches were actually valid. Marriage

is a sacrament, but is the sacramental union there if the Church wasn’t

present or involved in conferring it?

The

Council of Trent spent quite a bit of time grappling with that

question. They concluded that, in marriage, the priest is not the

primary instrument of the sacrament. Rather, the spouses confer the

sacrament on each other by their consent to the sacramental union.

Therefore, for non-Catholics, weddings in Lutheran churches (or City

Hall, or on the beach, or in Vegas with an Elvis impersonator

presiding) were valid provided certain criterion were met. First of

all, the ceremony had to be public. Back then “clandestine” marriages

were common – where people “got married” by sneaking into a corner and

saying “Okay, we’re married.” Church and state are both clear that

isn’t a legal marriage. Marriage is a public proclamation of

commitment, and it must be witnessed by at least two people. That’s

why, even if you get married at Ernie’s Love Chapel and Bingo Parlor,

Ernie will probably pull his wife away from As The World Turns to come

in and act as the second witness.

Second, the

parties marrying must be committing to a real marriage. That goes back

to last month’s discussion about the three goods of marriage –

permanence, fidelity and openness to life. If that commitment isn’t

there it isn’t a real marriage, no matter where it happens or who’s

presiding.

And, obviously, the parties must be

free to marry. If one or both are already married (with or without

civil divorce) no marriage can take place.

For

Catholics it’s a different story. Because we believe that the Catholic

Church is founded by Christ and is His instrument of salvation in the

world, and because we believe that our priesthood is directly tied to

the Priesthood of Christ, those of us who are in communion with His

Church are called to a higher level of respect for the sacramentality

of marriage. The Church requires, if at least one of the parties is a

baptized Catholic, that the marriage ceremony take place in accordance

with the liturgical norms set forth in the Code of Canon Law. In other

words, the ceremony is to take place in the presence of the Church –

either before a priest or deacon within a Catholic church, or by

special permission within another church with a Catholic priest or

deacon acting as formal witness.

So what does

this mean to all of us? If you’re dating someone who was married in a

Protestant ceremony, or in the woods with Pastor Al from the internet,

would that person need an annulment to marry you?

Okay,

say Fred and Rita, both Methodists, meet at Southern Methodist

University and get married at the campus chapel. It’s the first

marriage for both of them. But it turns out Fred is a cross-dresser,

and that’s just a little too much strain for Rita to take. They get

divorced, and Fred gets half of Rita’s wardrobe in the settlement. Rita

then meets Ken the Catholic, who wears only Levi’s and T-shirts. Rita

finds that refreshing and wants to marry Ken in the Catholic Church.

Rita

would need to petition a Church tribunal for an annulment for her

marriage to Fred. Odds are good that she’d get it, because she married

Fred not knowing about his penchant for Dolce and Gabbana gowns. Still,

she’d need to go through the whole process.

But

let’s change the story a little and assume that Rita was a baptized

Catholic, but still married Fred at the SMU chapel without a priest

present. In that case, in order to marry Ken, she would just have to

apply for a decree of nullity due to “defect of form.” In other words,

because Rita was Catholic and not married in accordance with the

liturgical norms of the Catholic Church, no sacramental marriage is

presumed to have taken place. Defect of form is a simple process. Once

evidence is shown, the decree is granted.

The moral of the story? If you’re Catholic and planning to marry a cross-dresser, do it at the SMU chapel.

Sorry.

Seriously, I hope this is making some sense. If two Protestants who are

free to marry do so in a non-Catholic ceremony, the marriage is

presumed valid, and for either party to later marry in the Catholic

Church, that party would have to apply for and receive and annulment.

But if one of the parties was Catholic and they were married in a

non-Catholic ceremony, the Church wouldn’t recognize the validity of

that marriage, and the party (whether the Catholic or non-Catholic

party) would only have to apply for “defect of form.”

Quiz:

Rita and Fred are both Methodists. They get married at SMU, but Fred

had been married before (and obviously has no Catholic annulment). Now

they’re divorced and Rita wants to marry Ken. Does she need a full

annulment, or just a decree of nullity due to defect of form?

Answer:

Defect of form. In the Church’s eyes, Fred wasn’t free to marry Rita in

the first place because he was still presumed to be validly married to

his first wife, so no sacramental marriage took place.

Enough confusion for one month? I thought so. Next month we’ll talk about annulments, divorce and dating.