Annulment needed for remarriage?

[HomeschoolDad]

Not sure what heading this should go under, but here goes:

Is an annulment needed when one partner has remarried (invalidly) and that partner later reconciles with their original spouse?

Let me explain. A husband and a wife, validly married in the Church, get divorced. The wife remarries outside the Church. Sometime later, the wife leaves the illicit second husband and reconciles with her original husband. They remarry in a civil ceremony so that they will not be legally regarded as divorced. Does she have to get any sort of annulment (a “defect of form”) for this illicit second marriage? Or, since there was never an annulment in the first place, is it a “no harm, no foul” situation and the original valid marriage stands?

Taking it a step further, would the original spouses need to have any kind of Church convalidation of their second (?) marriage to one another?

May be a dumb question, but one I think is still worth asking.

 

[CilladeRoma]

This is something better discussed with a priest or Canon lawyer, but I would say an annulment is probably not needed.

The Church would still consider the first couple married. I would think all the wife would have to do is confess the adulterous second marriage. A civil marriage would be required if a civil divorce was granted, if the couple wanted the state benefits of said marriage.

 

[phil19034]

based on the way you explain it, no annulment would be needed (assuming they never received an annulment before her 2nd marriage)

Unless there are factors you are not telling us, the couple SHOULD only need to sit down with their pastor and go to confession.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This sort of thing happens. The couple sits down with their Pastor.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

A civil marriage would be required if a civil divorce was granted, if the couple wanted the state benefits of said marriage.

I cited this in the original post.

I just know that there still have to be “defect of form” annulments* even under the most obviously invalid of circumstances (“a baptized Catholic getting married to a Buddhist in a hot-air balloon over Albuquerque, wearing fig leaves, with vows administered by a Wiccan priestess and burnt offerings having been made to the Flying Spaghetti Monster”).

• • I use “annulment” here in the usual vernacular sense.

 

[PetraG]

I don’t think this is a dumb question at all.

If the wife is Catholic, then the second marriage would suffer from defect of form. That alone would make the second marriage invalid. Does the first marriage enjoy the presumption of validity in the question of what the couple needs to do to reconcile and live as man and wife again? I have no idea.

If she is not Catholic, such that the second marriage didn’t suffer from defect of form, then I have no idea if the first marriage enjoys the presumption of validity with regards to showing the second marriage is invalid. I wonder if it has to be established positively that the first marriage was valid, rather than just giving it the presumption of validity because of the absence of obvious defects.

Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

§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 is canon lawyer stuff. If the wife is Catholic, though, I don’t see this being a difficult question for those who know. I’m interested in hearing about the case of the non-Catholic wife re-marrying–that is, would the first marriage enjoy the presumption of validity if the invalidity of the second marriage was predicated entirely on the validity of the first?

 

[CilladeRoma]

My understanding is that “defect of form” would not apply to the second marriage.

The first marriage, in the Church, is the only marriage that is of concern to the Church, since the 2nd marriage was outside the Church and presumed invalid since the bride was already bound to a marriage.

Again, this is just my opinion, based on what I know of Canon & Liturgical laws regarding marriage. I also know that, like most things, not everything is black & white. If this couple exsists I strongly urge them to speak with their pastor.

 

[vsedriver]

As far as the church is concerned the only marriage that exists in this situation is the first marriage. The woman was not free to marry again so the second marriage is invalid. A civil marriage doesn’t change a sacramental one.

 

[Anicette]

No need of an annulment of the 2nd marriage, because the first sacramental marriage is valid!
It is the ONLY catholic marriage. and reconciliation is a good that is encourage and should be celebrated.

Of course, there can still have earthly, moral and civil consequence of the second adulterous marriage. The second partner has lost his/her partner and children can get involved…

 

[acanonlawyer]

Is an annulment needed when one partner has remarried (invalidly) and that partner later reconciles with their original spouse?

Practically, there would be no need for a process of any sort. The people involved could simply resume cohabitation with each other and their marriage would be as presumptively valid as it was on the day of their wedding in the Church.

The only sense in which I would say that it is “needed” is that the person involved might want to make sure all of her “ducks are in a row”–there would be this “second marriage” in the civil records but the Church’s own records would have no information about it. “What’s going on there?” might be a question that could…somehow, somewhere, sometime, come up.

The point of the “process” in a lack of form situation, which is what this would be, is to basically certify a person’s freedom to marry. One might say “well, let’s just get all of this squared away and be done with it”, even though in this situation there is no determination of freedom to marry–the person is not free to marry. She’s already married (to the “first husband”).

All that being said, if someone actually came to me with this situation I’d probably say “forget the whole thing and just go back to your husband.”

would the original spouses need to have any kind of Church convalidation of their second (?) marriage to one another?

You can’t “convalidate” a marriage when there is no reason to question the validity of the marriage.

“a baptized Catholic getting married to a Buddhist in a hot-air balloon over Albuquerque, wearing fig leaves, with vows administered by a Wiccan priestess and burnt offerings having been made to the Flying Spaghetti Monster”

This is an admittedly obscure norm but canon law clearly states that such a person, if actually wearing a fig leaf, earns a dispensation from every ecclesiastical marriage law in the Code. It’s called the “Adamic privilege.”

Dan

 

[HomeschoolDad]

If this couple exsists I strongly urge them to speak with their pastor.

It is a hypothetical, but it could and does happen. My cousin and her first husband (neither Catholic) were considering getting back together after her divorce from her second husband, but her first husband died suddenly in the meantime. Beautiful couple, too bad they couldn’t have finalized this, if only for the sake of their children and grandchildren.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This is an admittedly obscure norm but canon law clearly states that such a person, if actually wearing a fig leaf, earns a dispensation from every ecclesiastical marriage law in the Code. It’s called the “Adamic privilege.”

It is indeed true what they say, you do learn something new every day

 

[Phemie]

HomeschoolDad:

“a baptized Catholic getting married to a Buddhist in a hot-air balloon over Albuquerque, wearing fig leaves, with vows administered by a Wiccan priestess and burnt offerings having been made to the Flying Spaghetti Monster”

This is an admittedly obscure norm but canon law clearly states that such a person, if actually wearing a fig leaf, earns a dispensation from every ecclesiastical marriage law in the Code. It’s called the “Adamic privilege.”

Dan

 

[Usige]

This is an admittedly obscure norm but canon law clearly states that such a person, if actually wearing a fig leaf, earns a dispensation from every ecclesiastical marriage law in the Code. It’s called the “Adamic privilege.”

Dan

I’ll be sure to bring that one up to my canon law professor next semester when we delve into the canons on marriage.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Even if it is determined that the couple’s original Catholic marriage was valid, they may still need a civil ceremony in order to receive the civil benefits of marriage. They may also discuss with their pastor the possibility of renewing their vows in a formal ceremony in the Church, but it would be made clear to them that this would only be a renewal of the original vows and it would not be convalidation ceremony.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Even if it is determined that the couple’s original Catholic marriage was valid, they may still need a civil ceremony in order to receive the civil benefits of marriage.

That is why I made reference to this in the OP. On the other hand, there are cases where civil remarriage could create financial liabilities (losing public benefits, pensions, health insurance, etc.). Spiritually, the sacramental marriage is the only thing that matters. I have entertained the idea, as many have, of entirely decoupling civil and sacramental marriage, allowing for a civil union if the couple so desires, with the sacramental marriage having no legal status.

They may also discuss with their pastor the possibility of renewing their vows in a formal ceremony in the Church, but it would be made clear to them that this would only be a renewal of the original vows and it would not be convalidation ceremony.

This would be a very nice way of welcoming one’s family and friends to celebrate their reconciliation, with the celebrant making it very clear to everyone both that reconciliation is possible, and that this is simply a renewal of vows, because the first marriage never ceased to be. This could be a very teachable moment on the indissolubility and permanence of marriage.

 

[jimXroberts]

As far as the Church is concerned, if the original marriage was valid, the couple have remained married throughout and there is no reason for convalidation.

The Church would not recognise the divorce or the civil remarriage. During the period of the illicit marriage, the wife would be regarded as living in a sinful relationship. Termination of the illicit marriage and going through a civil ceremony to reinstate the original marriage would be regarded by the Church as having rectified a sinful state. Some form of reconciliation would be required, but convalidation would not apply.