Am I even married at all?

[1ke]

The OP has already said what is happening: none of the three marriages will be examined, that the first marriage is presumed valid and the other two invalid and proof of death of the first wife is sufficient for them to have a convalidation.

And according to the Apostolic Signatura’s ruling on the matter, that is incorrect.

 

[1ke]

. In fact, that scenario makes even more sense if we consider that a marriage declared null was never valid in the first place, and so the hypothetical couple really have validly exchanged consent back in their marriage ceremony and have been validly married all along. 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 more on this scenario, search for the thread begun by poster Ditto’s Mom. Two different canon lawyers posted on that thread concurring that no convalidation is necessary (again, involving non catholics married civilly with a prior bond declared null). Ultimately Ditto came back to the thread and said that finally the diocesan tribunal concurred she was validly married to her second husband (since the tribunal ruled the first marriage null) and NO convalidation was needed.

ok, now I’m outta here.

 

[Rence]

The OP has already said what is happening: none of the three marriages will be examined, that the first marriage is presumed valid and the other two invalid and proof of death of the first wife is sufficient for them to have a convalidation.

Well, of course, her priest knows the whole scenario, and we do not. This is a great thing for the OP. It will save her a whole lot of trouble and red tape

 

[Phemie]

Now oftentimes an invalidly married couple must remove impediments to their marriage and then have a convalidation performed. If a marriage magically became valid upon the death of the spouse, then a marriage would magically become valid upon removal of other impediments, such as a declaration of nullity of a prior marriage. In fact, that scenario makes even more sense if we consider that a marriage declared null was never valid in the first place, and so the hypothetical couple really have validly exchanged consent back in their marriage ceremony and have been validly married all along. 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.

In your scenario, at least one is Catholic which is why the convalidation is required - their original marriage obviously lacked canonical form since they could neither be married in the Church nor obtain a dispensation due to the impediment of a previous bond.

A non-Catholic who is converting would not require a convalidation in a case like that, the present marriage would be presumed valid.

 

[Vico]

For more on this scenario, search for the thread begun by poster Ditto’s Mom. Two different canon lawyers posted on that thread concurring that no convalidation is necessary (again, involving non catholics married civilly with a prior bond declared null). Ultimately Ditto came back to the thread and said that finally the diocesan tribunal concurred she was validly married to her second husband (since the tribunal ruled the first marriage null) and NO convalidation was needed.

ok, now I’m outta here.

This is the post referred to:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11897548&postcount=80

“… the tribunal decreed that the marriage was invalid, so when I married my current husband, I was free to do so. Since neither one of us was Catholic at the time of the wedding, we were not required to be married in any Catholic form. …”

 

[Deltadeliquent]

On another note…
I guess they wouldn’t be so happy to know he had a vasectomy when married to a non Catholic wife before even meeting me…
For the record, we e been together for almost 12 years now.
I am past the age of child bearing.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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”.

That’s true, which is why it starts with the first marriage, not the second. Whether or not the first marriage was valid does not change with the death of a spouse. If the first marriage was valid, then the second marriage is not (since the spouse was alive at the time of the attempted marriage). Starting with investigating the second marriage means the first marriage does not enjoy the favor of law, and it not presumed valid.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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”.

To clarify, the first marriage enjoying the favor of law also ceases with the death of a spouse in these types of cases?

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Wait!.. Come back!..

.1ke: from the other thread…

“This is NOT correct. Non-Catholics marry validly when they marry. If both non-Catholics are baptised, they also have a sacramental marriage. If unbaptized, it is a valid natural marriage.”

Are you saying that two baptised non Catholics ALWAYS marry validly? And a sacramental marriage is always valid?

Husbands first marriage, (wife now deceased) were both baptised in the C of E and married in the C of E, by her father, no less…the vicar! First marriage for both, only 21 years old.

If so, then the other two marriages are not valid by default, because of the prior bond.
So they are declared invalid, and he is free to marry me.

If this reasoning is good, I get it, and understand why I was told what I was told.

I am only a problem if the first marriage was invalid. 1ke seems to say it was valid because of the nature of its two parties.

 

[1ke]

Are you saying that two baptised non Catholics ALWAYS marry validly?

No. I am not saying that because it is not true. There are impediments to valid marriage whether Catholic or non-Catholic. In that other thread someone was trying to assert that they lacked form, which is not the case for two non-Catholics. Ecclesial laws of the Church do not apply to nonCatolics.

And a sacramental marriage is always valid?

A valid marriage between two baptized people is always a sacrament.

If so, then the other two marriages are not valid by default, because of the prior bond.
So they are declared invalid, and he is free to marry me.

No, there is no assuming anything. A determination must be made based on facts.

seems to say it was valid because of the nature of its two parties.

No, that is not at all what I am saying.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

So non Catholic marriages are judged by the same rules (valid or invalid) as a Catholic ones.

Ok, I’m getting a headache. I’m going with whatever I’m told by my tribunal.

 

[Phemie]

So non Catholic marriages are judged by the same rules (valid or invalid) as a Catholic ones.

Ok, I’m getting a headache. I’m going with whatever I’m told by my tribunal.

And that’s exactly as it should be.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

So non Catholic marriages are judged by the same rules (valid or invalid) as a Catholic ones.

Yes and No.

Yes: There are diriment impediments to marriage, based on divine law, that apply to all people, regardless of religion: e.g., a person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, perpetual impotence etc.

No: Ecclesial law does not apply to non-Catholics; e.g., marrying in Catholic form, etc.

Ok, I’m getting a headache. I’m going with whatever I’m told by my tribunal.

That’s what you’ll have to do anyway.

 

[Rence]

So non Catholic marriages are judged by the same rules (valid or invalid) as a Catholic ones.

Ok, I’m getting a headache. I’m going with whatever I’m told by my tribunal.

Yes, that’s what you’re supposed to do

 

[dans0622]

This is really not that complicated. First, a tribunal would not investigate the validity of the first marriage, since the Respondent party is now dead. It’s impossible, basically, since there is no way to initiate a case when there can be no citation of the Respondent party.

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.

Third, the second and third marriages also enjoy a certain presumption of validity since they were “properly celebrated” (in accord with the form required of the Parties). So, in order to declare them invalid, the documentary process would be used.

Fourth, the subsequent marriages would not convalidate since the man and his second and third “wives” were not living as a married couple when the death occurred. If he was living with either of them when the first wife died, then it could be argued that the marriage became valid when the impediment ceased. He was not living with either of them, though, and so the marital consent no longer existed. There could have been no convalidation.

I recall a similar thread on this topic, by the same OP… But, sometimes it helps to reinvent the wheel.

Dan

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Thanks Dans…
I did start this thread with the idea that my husband might actually be married to his second wife. It slipped into a general discussion of the situation after that.

I didn’t mean to start two discussions on the same topics. I just had a side question I hadn’t considered before.

 

[jmcrae]

Fourth, the subsequent marriages would not convalidate since the man and his second and third “wives” were not living as a married couple when the death occurred. If he was living with either of them when the first wife died, then it could be argued that the marriage became valid when the impediment ceased. He was not living with either of them, though, and so the marital consent no longer existed. There could have been no convalidation.

No convalidation would be required, since neither party to the second marriage was Catholic.

The question at hand is, did it become valid at the moment of the death of the first wife? (If they had still been living together, it would have, since non-Catholics are not bound by ecclesiastical law.)

 

[Elizium23]

Kind of weird to be celebrating your authentic wedding anniversary on the date of death of your previous spouse!

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

No convalidation would be required, since neither party to the second marriage was Catholic.

The question at hand is, did it become valid at the moment of the death of the first wife? (If they had still been living together, it would have, since non-Catholics are not bound by ecclesiastical law.)

However, they are bound by divine law, which applies to Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and that is the issue. One cannot marry another person when they are married (diriment impediment based on divine law). If the first marriage is valid, an attempt to marry is invalid an illicit. The invalid and illicit attempt at marriage does not become valid at a later date (excepting removal of the impediment AND convalidation, which is not an automatic action).

 

[jmcrae]

However, they are bound by divine law, which applies to Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and that is the issue. One cannot marry another person when they are married (diriment impediment based on divine law). If the first marriage is valid, an attempt to marry is invalid an illicit. The invalid and illicit attempt at marriage does not become valid at a later date (excepting removal of the impediment AND convalidation, which is not an automatic action).

As I understand it, convalidation would only be required if one or both were Catholic. Non-Catholics cannot receive (and therefore cannot be required to receive) convalidation.