An unusual marriage question

[Reuben_J]

This is a prime example of how discussions here can get ridiculous and how people become argumentative simply for the sake of being argumentative.

To some people here that seems to be a favourite pastime. … Forget about it, Fr.

Your first post #3 is clear enough.

The OP’s question is interesting though. There were cases where spouses were missing and presumed dead but the living spouses were not freed to remarry.

Wonder which canon applies to those passengers in the missing commercial plane (MH 370), the wreckage which was not yet found and the authority cannot produce any evidence that they were dead yet? The plane has been missing for nearly three years already. Seem obvious that they cannot survive within that period but of course there is the remotest possibility that they may be alive somewhere.

 

[FrDavid96]

To some people here that seems to be a favourite pastime. … Forget about it, Fr.

Your first post #3 is clear enough.

The OP’s question is interesting though. There were cases where spouses were missing and presumed dead but the living spouses were not freed to remarry.

Wonder which canon applies to those passengers in the missing commercial plane (MH 370), the wreckage which was not yet found and the authority cannot produce any evidence that they were dead yet? The plane has been missing for nearly three years already. Seem obvious that they cannot survive within that period but of course there is the remotest possibility that they may be alive somewhere.

That’s a case where canon 1707 would apply—there’s good reason to presume a person deceased, but there is no civil death certificate.

In that case, the bishop would do exactly what is required by c. 1707—investigate the situation and finally (it seems pretty clear to assume) would issue an ecclesiastical declaration of presumed death. At that point, the surviving spouse would be free to marry again.

However, the issue of the civil legality of the [first] marriage would remain. The Church cannot solemnize a marriage which would not be recognized by civil law* (c. 1071.1.2) unless the bishop gives permission. So if the couple are legally married, even though the Church presumes one spouse to be deceased, civil law won’t allow a married person to marry someone else. That means that the first marriage would have to be dissolved under civil law (a civil divorce might actually be the solution) before the new couple could obtain a civill marriage license and then proceed with the church marriage. Yes, a bishop could give permission under c. 1071.1.2 but that always causes other problems since the couple would not be married in the eyes of the state.

---

• Caveat lector: that sentence is a double-negative. Read it carefully. I messed up a few days ago posting a double-negative.

 

[Reuben_J]

That’s a case where canon 1707 would apply—there’s good reason to presume a person deceased, but there is no civil death certificate.

In that case, the bishop would do exactly what is required by c. 1707—investigate the situation and finally (it seems pretty clear to assume) would issue an ecclesiastical declaration of presumed death. At that point, the surviving spouse would be free to marry again.

However, the issue of the civil legality of the [first] marriage would remain. The Church cannot solemnize a marriage which would not be recognized by civil law* (c. 1071.1.2) unless the bishop gives permission. So if the couple are legally married, even though the Church presumes one spouse to be deceased, civil law won’t allow a married person to marry someone else. That means that the first marriage would have to be dissolved under civil law (a civil divorce might actually be the solution) before the new couple could obtain a civill marriage license and then proceed with the church marriage. Yes, a bishop could give permission under c. 1071.1.2 but that always causes other problems since the couple would not be married in the eyes of the state.

---

• Caveat lector: that sentence is a double-negative. Read it carefully. I messed up a few days ago posting a double-negative.

Thanks. I understand that. It also explains why in some states where applicable, the Church would ask the intended married couple to get a civil marriage certificate first before the priest performs the marriage ceremony (in the church).