Am I even married at all?

[CB_Catholic]

What I don’t understand is why people are still questioning this. She has been informed of what will happen by her Diocese. No one here has the right to tell the OP the Tribunal of the Diocese is wrong, except Rome. That is overstepping boundaries and causing unnecessary confusion and distress to the OP, and implying that the decision of the Tribunal is not to be trusted. Do people realize the effect their words can have on people? This is a real life matter involving real human beings, not an exercise in Canon Law.

OP, proceed as directed by your priest and Diocese and trust in them, not some anonymous posters on the internet. I am really sorry you have to experience this. My advice to you is that in such profound spiritual and life matters, you seek out the advice of the proper people personally, not from strangers on the internet. You have the proper resources already at hand.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Somebody post authoritative Church references that specifically states that upon the death of a first spouse,

1. 
   *]An illicit and invalid attempt at marriage retroactively becomes valid for non-Catholics; and
   *]That fact that the first marriage may very well valid (and was in place at the time of subsequent marital attempts) is simply ignored in the investigation of determining the validity of subsequent marriage attempts.
   
   Do so, and I’ll shut up (note: not vague references that clearly do not apply to this situation).

 

[1ke]

Somebody post authoritative Church references that specifically states that upon the death of a first spouse,

1. 
   *]An illicit and invalid attempt at marriage retroactively becomes valid for non-Catholics; and
   *]That fact that the first marriage may very well valid (and was in place at the time of subsequent marital attempts) is simply ignored in the investigation of determining the validity of subsequent marriage attempts.
   
   Do so, and I’ll shut up (note: not vague references that clearly do not apply to this situation).

1. 
   No one has asserted either of these things.

 

[Elizium23]

No one has asserted either of these things.

You yourself did.

1ke:

Elizium23:

But that’s not how it works. After a declaration of nullity is issued then the couple still must arrange for a convalidation observing Catholic form - or a radical sanation - the performance of either reveals that the invalid marriage did not suddenly become valid as soon as the tribunal banged their gavel.

For a Catholic, yes. But we are not talking about Catholics. The original consent given between the non Cathilics suffices. There is no convalidation. The Catholic requires convalidation due to form, no such additional impediment exists for the non Catholic.

Here you assert that as soon as a declaration of nullity comes through, two formerly-invalidly-married non-Catholics suddenly become married without any new exchange of consent!

And you are claiming that the OP’s husband’s second marriage may have suddenly become valid as his first wife died!

Do you deny you have been claiming these things for the last few pages? Surely we have been arguging whether or not that is true. Nobody but you brought them up.

 

[1ke]

You yourself did.
Here you assert that as soon as a declaration of nullity comes through, two formerly-invalidly-married non-Catholics suddenly become married without any new exchange of consent!

which is not what Warrior Monk asserted. He asked for proof that the marriage becomes retroactively valid and no one ever made such a claim. Retroactively valid and valid at the point the first spouse dies are not the same thing.

See Dans’s post who explains it quite clearly.

And you are claiming that the OP’s husband’s second marriage may have suddenly become valid as his first wife died!

Do you deny you have been claiming these things for the last few pages? Surely we have been arguging whether or not that is true. Nobody but you brought them up.

No I haven’t claimed the OP’s husband’s second marriage became valid upon the first wife’s death.

The man was not living with her at the time. In the general case, yes it could have become valid if the circumstances included consent that had not been revoked. I never stated that it applied in the OP’s case, in fact I stated that it likely did NOT apply in her case, just that it is possible in some cases.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

No one has asserted either of these things.

See:

The first marriage may or may not have been valid. But because the first wife is no longer living, it will not be examined. **

How is this not ignoring the first marriage? If the first marriage is not examined, then it is impossible to demonstrate that the second marriage is invalid due to prior bond. It would also mean that the first marriage does not enjoy the favor of law.

 

[1ke]

See:
1ke;12141831:

The first marriage may or may not have been valid. But because the first wife is no longer living, it will not be examined. **

How is this not ignoring the first marriage? If the first marriage is not examined, then it is impossible to demonstrate that the second marriage is invalid due to prior bond. It would also mean that the first marriage does not enjoy the favor of law.

See Dan’s post.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

See Dan’s post.

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along, notably:

Second, if there is no obvious reason, apparent in documentation, to question the validity of that first marriage (for example, one party was previously married) the Tribunal will operate on the presumption that it is valid and impeded any subsequent marriages of either party, until the death of the wife. The man’s prior bond would be the ground of invalidity.

You disagreed:

I’ve already provided the citation from the Apostolic Signatura. Each marriage must be investigated sequentially starting with the first, which is not “presumed valid”.

The first marriage is presumed valid in the case at hand.