Advice on divorce & joining the church

[RoseP]

Hi everyone

This is my first posting on the forums as a newbie so I’ll apologise in advance if this question has been answered before !

I am a non catholic (although a baptized protestant) who is married to another non catholic (who is also a baptized protestant). We were married in a civil ceremony 20 years ago. I have recently started RCIA & attending mass at my local church. Joining the Catholic Church is something that I have been considering for a long time and I am loving my introduction into the faith. My RCIA team & Parish Priest have been so welcoming and patient with all my questions. However there is one subject that I am struggling to get my head around…

As I mentioned above, I have been very happily married for 20 years and my husband is very supportive of my decision to convert even though he has no intention of doing so himself. He was previously married over 30 years ago and divorced after 12 years. The marriage was a result of an unexpected pregnancy and both parties were very young. It was a religious ceremony and both were baptized. Inevitably it broke down.

My question is, does he need to seek an annulment in order for me to receive the Eucharist and become a full member of the church ? Or would our marriage need to be convalidated? Or both?

I haven’t discussed this with anyone at my church just yet but I know it will need to be addressed. I just want to understand what needs to happen before I do that. I am in the UK.

Many thanks!

 

[MJJean]

Your marriage isn’t valid in the Church because your husband’s first marriage is presumed valid unless/until proven invalid. So, yes, that marriage needs to be annulled before your current marriage can be convalidated and you can be received into the Church.

Every diocese is different, but generally annulments take 12+ months to complete. It’s best to get started as soon as possible. If your husband is willing to do an annulment of his first marriage talk to your pastor as soon as you can to begin the process.

 

[Usige]

In addition to what MJJean has said if his first wife is deceased he would not need an annulment. His first marriage would have ended with her death and then he would have been free to marry.

If the primary motivator for his first marriage was his wife’s pregnancy, then that might be grounds for annulment. On the other hand if they were planning to get married and then she got pregnant it would have little to no bearing on the case.

You need to talk with your pastor or the RCIA coordinator to get things started. As it stands you are considered to be in an irregular marriage situation. Depending on the parish and diocese you might only be allowed to go so far through the RCIA unless there is some effort to regularize your marriage (i.e. annulment and planned convalidation). In some parishes where there are a large number of RCIA inquirers that have previous marriages that need to be resolved, they move them off into their own class. They essentially are held in the inquiry phase until their annulment processes are well underway.

 

[1ke]

does he need to seek an annulment in order for me to receive the Eucharist and become a full member of the church ?

Yes. Please make an appointment with your pastor to discuss moving forward.

Or would our marriage need to be convalidated?

No convalidation does not enter into this scenario at all. If your husband’s first marriage is invalid, your marriage is valid.

Or both?

No.

I haven’t discussed this with anyone at my church just yet but I know it will need to be addressed. I just want to understand what needs to happen before I do that. I am in the UK.

Many thanks!

Given the pregnancy aspect, it may be fairly easy to show grounds for nullity.

 

[Usige]

No convalidation does not enter into this scenario at all. If your husband’s first marriage is invalid, your marriage is valid.

1ke, can you point me to a resource that shows that to be the case? I have seen conflicting information on this point. On the face of it canon 1085§2 seems to contradict this.

Canon 1085§2

Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly.

This would mean that consent in the second marriage is not valid as it is not permissible to contract a new marriage until it is known with certainty that the first marriage was invalid. As I understand it, “established legitimately and certainly”, means that the petitioner must have received a positive declaration from the court of first instance. That was established in a reply from the Apostolic Signatura in a reply around January 1990.

If anything has changed I would be glad to add it to my collection of info on marriage and canon law.

 

[1ke]

1ke, can you point me to a resource that shows that to be the case? I have seen conflicting information on this point. On the face of it canon 1085§2 seems to contradict this.

This would mean that consent in the second marriage is not valid as it is not permissible to contract a new marriage until it is known with certainty that the first marriage was invalid. As I understand it, “established legitimately and certainly”, means that the petitioner must have received a positive declaration from the court of first instance. That was established in a reply from the Apostolic Signatura in a reply around January 1990.

If anything has changed I would be glad to add it to my collection of info on marriage and canon law.

Canon 1085 goes to licety, **not **validity. And it is an ecclesial law only, therefore does not bind non-Catholics.

Yes, this has come up a zillion times on CAF, and many people continually try to insist that a non-Catholic would need a convalidation and it isn’t true.

The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (the Commentary) makes all of this very clear. Read the commentary on canon 1085 and it addresses all aspects of this. It cites references including the Apostolic Sigantura.

The are several canon lawyers who post here, dans0622 being one of them, who has explained this a number of times. I’ll try to find a link to one of those, when I have time.

 

[1ke]

Ah, found it more easily than I thought.

Ditto(name removed by moderator) went through this exact situation, with RCIA people telling her she needed a convalidation.

In the end (page 6) you can see that she did **NOT **need a convalidation after obtaining a decree of nullity from her first marriage, because her second marriage was VALID.

The posters dans0622 and SerraSemper are canon lawyers posting on this thread who give links and references.

There are, of course, others on the thread posting misinformation. So try to follow these two posters referenced above. dans0622 also addresses canon 1085 in this post.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=759525

Thanks!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hi everyone

This is my first posting on the forums as a newbie so I’ll apologise in advance if this question has been answered before !

I am a non catholic (although a baptized protestant) who is married to another non catholic (who is also a baptized protestant). We were married in a civil ceremony 20 years ago. I have recently started RCIA & attending mass at my local church. Joining the Catholic Church is something that I have been considering for a long time and I am loving my introduction into the faith. My RCIA team & Parish Priest have been so welcoming and patient with all my questions. However there is one subject that I am struggling to get my head around…

As I mentioned above, I have been very happily married for 20 years and my husband is very supportive of my decision to convert even though he has no intention of doing so himself. He was previously married over 30 years ago and divorced after 12 years. The marriage was a result of an unexpected pregnancy and both parties were very young. It was a religious ceremony and both were baptized. Inevitably it broke down.

My question is, does he need to seek an annulment in order for me to receive the Eucharist and become a full member of the church ? Or would our marriage need to be convalidated? Or both?

I haven’t discussed this with anyone at my church just yet but I know it will need to be addressed. I just want to understand what needs to happen before I do that. I am in the UK.

Many thanks!

Yes both your previous marriage and his will need to be annulled. Talk to your priest now because it can take over a year. You can’t receive the sacraments until both marriages are annulled.

God Bless, and welcome to the church.

 

[1ke]

Yes both your previous marriage and his will need to be annulled. Talk to your priest now because it can take over a year. You can’t receive the sacraments until both marriages are annulled.

God Bless, and welcome to the church.

The OP was not previously married, only her husband.

 

[Usige]

Ah, found it more easily than I thought.

Ditto(name removed by moderator) went through this exact situation, with RCIA people telling her she needed a convalidation.

In the end (page 6) you can see that she did **NOT **need a convalidation after obtaining a decree of nullity from her first marriage, because her second marriage was VALID.

The posters dans0622 and SerraSemper are canon lawyers posting on this thread who give links and references.

There are, of course, others on the thread posting misinformation. So try to follow these two posters referenced above. dans0622 also addresses canon 1085 in this post.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=759525

Thanks!

Thanks, 1ke. After reading your previous response I pulled out my Navarra translation to look at the actual Latin text compared to the translation I posted from the Vatican. Let say the “official” translation on the Vatican website is a little deficient. The phase “it is not on that account permitted” could be interpreted as invalid or illicit, but the Latin (and my Navarra translation) make it clear that it is illicit. Appreciate the heads up.

 

[RoseP]

Correct 1ke , I haven’t been married previously.

Thanks for clarifying the way forward everyone.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The OP was not previously married, only her husband.

Oops. Thanks for the correction.