So, I'm pursuing an annulment from my first wife.  We had a legal divorce in 2003.
I won't go into all the grounds here, other than one of them is that she was a habitual liar.  She "converted" from a Buddhist background.  I'm convinced she did this to have the "pageantry" of an American wedding.
Anyway, she was Asian and was born overseas.  I was in the Army before we were married, and she was "supposedly" going through the conversion process in a Catholic church that spoke her native language.
I have been getting the documents together to submit to the Archdiocesan Tribunal (the "court" for Catholic Annulment purposes).
It turns out that she did not provide the parish with evidence of her baptism.  They called me because I had asked for her baptismal info to support the Annulment request.
She told them that she had been baptized ETA by a Catholic priest..in China...and that no certificate was available.  (she was Asian, but not Chinese).
They accepted it at the parish, because I'm sure she gave them some tearfully rendered and apparently sincere hard luck story.
Like I said above, I was in the Army, so when I came home she told me that her "conversion" was done and that she had submitted the appropriate info to my parish that would allow for a wedding mass.
Anyway, I was completely blown away that she would tell such a baldfaced lie.  I don't know why I'm surprised, because it is consistent with one of the many reasons I divorced her (and believe I have grounds for Annulment).
So, I think it won't be a problem, because I'm pretty sure they will find in my favor.  It's just that I have been carrying the burden of being a divorced Catholic around for more than a decade...and it turns out we were married in the church under fraudulent circumstances.
I'm relived, because I think there won't be a hard time getting the annulment...but I'm angry about it just the same, even though it was 20 years ago.
ETA 9/29/14: Going in for my hearing tomorrow.  I submitted the documents, including a pretty lengthy questionnaire.  It was an unwelcome trip down memory lane.  Anyway, I'm just going to go in and tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.





 

Remember, the ONLY thing the Tribunal looks at is to answer the question, "Was the Sacrament of Matrimony truly applied?"

If it can be shown that she was never legitimately baptized, or that she was being less than open with you regarding the Sacrament, the annulment will go through.

In my case, it became radically clear that I was not in my right mind when I was married the first time, and my annulment went through without a hitch, even if it did take what...... 2 years?


Since then, my current wife and I have happily married in the Church, and it's definitely for real this time.

I know.



I don't think she was truly baptized, in any Christian denomination, let alone in the Catholic Church.



It just blows my mind, even after knowing everything I know, that people can lie like that.
 

Shit like that can change one's whole outlook on life.

I hope the process goes well, and speedily, so this can come to a good end for you. (or as good an end as is possible, under the circumstances)

The problem will be proving she was never baptized.

You said initially that she claimed she was and the church accepted that, so proving she wasn't will be an issue.

I was a divorced non-Catholic who wanted to marry a Catholic woman in her church at a Catholic Weddding Mass.

I needed two things .....
1) Convert
2) Annulment

Conversion was easy ..... classes and such. was actually kind of fun for me. ( I was the 'devils advocate' of the class because I had questions and no fear in asking them.

Annulment - Wow who knew that Annulments had to go to the Vatican for final approval ....( I sure did not ) ... unless there were special circumstances.

The Priest asked about my baptism, so I asked my mother who informed me I had never been baptized." Pauline Privilege "

But one of his superiors educated him on that doctrine and my Annulment was granted locally.


If you can prove she was never Baptized and it may be difficult to do ( unless she is willing to admit to the deception ) you cannot be held to that marriage by the church and the annulment will be granted.

If you do not know about the Pauline Privilege maybe this can help you .....

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/04/04/what-is-the-pauline-privilege

Good Luck going forward !!!!!!!


ETA: My situation occurred over 27 years ago.



.

Actually, that should be the easiest, because a certificate of baptism must be on file at whatever RCC through which she entered the church.

If it's not there, or found to have been less than solid, it will immediately invalidate everything that came afterwards.

Did she ever receive Communion or Confirmation?

Thanks for the input.



I can prove a pattern of false statements and lies of omission.  Given that I know for a fact that she has never been to the country she claimed to be baptized in, this would also allow inference by the tribunal based on a pattern of conduct.



I'm going to submit the application. They'll decide whether I meet the grounds or not.  That said, my "case" is going to be focused on me, not her.



Also, she admitted to me, about a year after we were married, that she still considered herself Buddhist.



My word against hers, but if she shows up when called to testify, I don't think she will make a credible witness.



 

Allegedly, both through the Catholic Church, locally, that she told me she converted through.



She stated she was baptized through that church, too, so I think it is unlikely.



This is why I think she picked "China" because given our ages, it would have been during Mao's cultural revolution and any christian activities would have been underground.



She has never been to China.  Neither have her parents.  Her father was in the RoK army.



 

Sorry to hear.

My experience was just the opposite.  My ex and I were married in a civil ceremony, and then renewed in a Baptist ceremony.  After the armistice, she married an RC.  He was miffed that he couldn't take communion, so he got her to initiate an annulment.  I had a "public defender" appointed for me by the archdiocese.  I met with her for several hours.  I told her neither she nor the C church had the right to tell me I was never married, and my children were bastards.  Please don't try to explain to me the bullshit that is recited to say that isn't the case -- I heard it all.  Most people don't know that "jesuit" with a small "j" means, "sly, cunning or deceitful".  I learned that in four years at a Catholic school.  

We all make fun of the imams and the logical gymnastics they go through, but annulment is every bit as crazy as anything found in Islam. My PD told me how great annulment was, and what I needed to say to get one.  I told her I had no interest in an annulment, and it was morally outrageous for some clowns to tell me 30 years after the fact that we didn't have the proper "sacramental minds" to enter into marriage.  Bullshit.  Whether you get an annulment depends on the size of the contribution you make.  It wasn't worth a penny to me, or a minute more of my time once I saw what was going on.

This isn't GD.



If you want to shit on my faith, start a thread there.



Nobody's saying your kids are bastards.



 

Don't worry about it being about you or her. In my case, my ex protested for the same reasons our friend above you stated: she didn't want the children to be considered bastards (although it was perfectly ok by her for their dad to be considered one).

Anyway, no such label is applied to children, and my annulment was all about me. Went through slick as snot.

Do it...

Well, don't get me wrong here because I am not Catholic, but it seems like the church authorities that were responsible should have verified a few facts about your ex-wife before what appears to be some sort of pencil-whipping of the paperwork instead of investigating her claims through the Catholic church in her country of origin first before doing anything else.

She is/ was a Philippine national right?
The "China" thing should have set of at least a couple warning bells for the Church authorities I would think anyways.
In the political sense and other considerations the church will now be compelled to initiate an investigation upon itself right?
Under the circumstances also, do you think that this might take a long time to handle, that being, if it really ever gets handled at all?
They will have to admit some sort of incompetency on their part if they do, right?
It's been over ten years here according to the finalization of this divorce.
How much can be verified now?
SE Asia right?
Fifty bucks will get poddy to say just about anything you want if you can find him.

Thanks,

SAE

The Church typically gives people the benefit of the doubt and assumes they're not liars. So they wouldn't bother doing much investigation on the front end.

Maybe they should start working harder in this area of verifying some facts then.
As you state, the church may have given the ex-wife the, "benefit of the doubt" about her past experiences and actions, but what about what the OP is going through right now!
I guess he doesn't get his. The lack of foresight here is appalling as in this case has been abundantly revealed.

The Church verifies baptism via obtaining a Certificate of Baptism.

Now, if said certificate is not from the RCC and is BS, there's not a whole hell of a lot the Church can do...

Obviously.

<><

I am only speculating, but I think she picked "China" on purpose.





She was born in the late 60's.  It was Mao's Cultural Revolution in China when Christians, especially Catholics with allegiance to a "foreign country" (the Vatican) were executed or sent to gulags for being "counterrevolutionaries."





I have no idea what she told the Monsignor from my parish, because he is now deceased.  He did note in the record that she was born and baptized in China (which is false, but he would not know that).  I was not available at the time because I was in the military, and my grandmother had already passed.





I thought about it since the OP. One of the reasons I find it so offensive is that yeah, it was my "home" parish.  My grandmother worked as a cleaning lady in the rectory, I used to visit her and the priests there when I was a kid and I have such fond memories of the place.  My ex knew that.





I also think that may have been why the Monsignor "took her word for it".    He was a very compassionate man, a genuine good soul.  I'm sure he also thought that I knew what she had told him (I didn't) and he probably thought there was no way Primus would lie.



It's a sense of betrayal, I guess.  But it was 20 years ago, so, honestly, it's more of an emotional reaction than anything.





 

Well, either way that it goes, will this process if successful bring you the peace that you are looking for as far as genuine closure is concerned?
Will Monsignor passing throw a wrench into the machine of this process do you think, or even quite possibly help?

SAE

Most conversion classes around here start with a baptism (or re-baptism for records purposes) if there is no paper work.  It is not that you have to be baptized in the catholic church but baptized with a record of such.  The methodists, lutherans and episcopalians  seem to have no problems showing up with records. Now the baptists, that is another story.

Yeah, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If they only recognized a fully Catholic Baptism as recorded by an active Parrish, they'd be ripped for being non-ecumenical.

So they give people the benefit of the doubt and are blamed for the confusion that results.

Too universalist I think according to a subject such as this one.
Let the RCC only recognize their own and then fully verify their own.
Benefits of the doubt should not be employed here.
For example: Will most protestant denominations recognize an RCC baptism with certificate?
The answer I believe on a whole is nyet.
Confusion is a bi-product of what stupid does when it gets up on its own in the morning after mother wisdom has already left for work.
Bratha.

SAE

Sounds like a problem with most Protestant churches, then....

Baptism in Christ is Baptism in Christ. Even a schmuck like me can baptize someone in a pinch...

You are not a "schmuch" but what is, is definitely what is as God especially looks at all of us primarily from the condition of our hearts.
I believe that we should draw some distinctions here, but am more concerned about the OP receiving some healing right now over the rest of this stuff. And in this, I believe that he still cares about this woman who probably left him for another.
It is a hard place to be in especially after all this time going by as it has.
We should pray for him and respect him as he needs a blessing to come his way as we all do when we become a little hard upon ourselves. I believe that he has regrets that still plagues him to certain degree now.
He is fighting memories now; as we should ask God to help him be relieved of this condition, so that he might find happiness in his life, that being more than he has right now!

OP, we are in this struggle with you now!

SAE

I am a Baptist and though our beliefs don't always match up.  I have always truly admired dedicated Catholics for their convictions to their faith and the rules as set forth by the Church.  

Sorry its been such a process for you OP.

For what it's worth, the feeling is mutual.

and righteous.

Brother....Been through the process myself.  You'll see that all will be well in the end.  Hang tough!

Update in OP

 

OP, good on 'ya for sticking to your beliefs and going through the process.  Prayers for a quick decision by the tribunal.

Ugh. Ain't that the truth...