But this statement is entirely UNTRUE. I do not know where this person got such an idea but it isn’t true. The statement generally speaking, the Catholic Church does not consider civil marriages between baptized Christians to be valid isn’t accurate. In fact, it is just the opposite.ost #17 that you are both referring to was actually information given to me by a member of my local diocesan tribunal staff. I was assisting with an annulment investigation in a case similar to that of the OP’s, and the person on the tribunal I spoke with made the comment that, generally speaking, the Catholic Church does not consider civil marriages between baptized Christians to be valid, but I was still required to have the couple do the full annulment investigation.
And you would be living in mortal sin until you could convalidate the marriage, putting your own soul in jeopardy, separating yourself from the sacraments, and giving scandal to others, and possibly bringing children into this very bad situation.But if he marries another and subsequent to that has that marriage properly annulled in accordance with proper process, he can remarry within the Church and that is not adultery.
Waiting for your spouse to die so you can marry another within the legal constructs of ones religious institution sounds like a very holy enterprise indeed.And, if the first marriage is found to be VALID, you have no path to resolution except to separate from the second person you “married” or live in continence in the same house and wait for the first spouse to die (which may not happend before YOU die).
I think 1ke’s point is that it isn’t very holy at all; it’s a bad idea.Waiting for your spouse to die so you can marry another within the legal constructs of ones religious institution sounds like a very holy enterprise indeed.
I agree.I think 1ke’s point is that it isn’t very holy at all; it’s a bad idea.
This sounds like a real problem. Her baptismal status, and whether or not she was a Catholic, are extremely important to the situation.Hi Eric
The answers to your questions, no she was not married , I don’t know her religion if any,
I have absolutely no chance of finding her as the UK court bailiffs could not find her to serve divorce papers.
If the baptismal status of the other spouse cannot be proven, then the tribunal proceeds with a formal case.Without this basic information, I have no idea how they would proceed.
Once again, the tribunal representative I spoke with did not elaborate upon the statement in question so I can only guess at the reasons behind it. But you are presuming that it is incorrect based upon the fact that a clergyman is not the minister of the sacrament of marriage. The rationale may not have anything to do with who is and who is not the proper minister. Rather, the decision for baptized Christians to get married in a civil ceremony rather than involving their church community could (and the key word is “could” and not “does”) represent a failure in appreciating that marriage is a sacrament or a holy Christian union. This could be an impediment for the establishment of a sacramental bond of marriage. But seeing as I only assist in annulment preparations and am not privy to the tribunal’s ensuing investigation, I’m only guessing here.But this statement is entirely UNTRUE. I do not know where this person got such an idea but it isn’t true. The statement generally speaking, the Catholic Church does not consider civil marriages between baptized Christians to be valid isn’t accurate. In fact, it is just the opposite…
…There is absolutely no difference between a couple exchanging vows before their clergy person and a couple exchanging their vows before a magistrate/justice of the peace. In both cases the couple is exchanging their vows before a layperson, who is simply a witness.
This is not an essential property of marriage. the three essential properties of marriage are fidelity, fecundy, and perpetuity.Rather, the decision for baptized Christians to get married in a civil ceremony rather than involving their church community could (and the key word is “could” and not “does”) represent a failure in appreciating that marriage is a sacrament or a holy Christian union.
I have no doubt someone told you this, I disagree with the accuracy of their statement. You (I don’t mean you personally) cannot find any scrap of evidence that substantiates this, and canon law and the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law both fail to substantiate this position.This could be an impediment for the establishment of a sacramental bond of marriage. But seeing as I only assist in annulment preparations and am not privy to the tribunal’s ensuing investigation, I’m only guessing here.
You can give that information to the diocesan tribunal and they can contact the local Catholic Church. You cannot access someone else’s sacramental records, they are confidential.Is there any way that i can find out if she was baptised or not I know where she lived and the year she was born. but thats about all i do know thanks
He must contact , as he has done , his Diocesan Marriage tribunal for help. Lay people cannot , despite all their wishes to the contrary , provide any real help - we are all guessing as to the outcome of this . Leave this one to the professionals.Neither of us were practicing any religion at that time and we married in a registry office
No. I am not assuming any such thing. I think you skipped a number of posts to arrive at this conculsion.1ke
You are presuming that Beata’s first wife was catholic - we don’t actually know that and nor I suspect does he.
In the US, that’s generally true. But the OP is not in the US. In many places Baptismal records are publically available in the same way birth records are here.You can give that information to the diocesan tribunal and they can contact the local Catholic Church. You cannot access someone else’s sacramental records, they are confidential.
Here’s what I don’t understand. If you are Catholic and marry civilly the Church doesn’t recognize your marriage and you cannot participate in the Sacraments. OK got that. But let’s say I marry at the courthouse and then we civilly divorce. I want to marry in the Church, suddenly my prior marriage becomes a marriage that has to be dissolved (failure to follow form). I guess I am stunned that it’s used against me in receiving the sacraments (not valid marriage) but it’s good enough to keep me from marrying. I am in the process of a failure to follow form and, although I’m relieved I won’t need a full annulment it’s expensive. I am on hold because I ran out of money. Just to get all the documents I need to file it I will have spent well over 150.00 then I hear there’s a fee to file it…not sure how I will get those funds. I just don’t understand how something is but isn’t a marriage. I am trying to fully comply with the Church in all areas of my life but it seems they try to have it both ways when it comes to a civil marriage; you didn’t do it in the Church so you can’t take communion but you can’t marry because you’re married??? It makes no sense to me but I’m not in a hurry as I have no desire to remarry–but …I want this behind me in case the situation arises in the future so I don’t have it in the way. To me, it’s part of letting go and learning so I don’t repeat the same mistakes. I married a Jewish man, it was a horrible union as I was out of the Church for a full 9 years and I’m glad the civil divorce is done.But this statement is entirely UNTRUE. I do not know where this person got such an idea but it isn’t true. The statement generally speaking, the Catholic Church does not consider civil marriages between baptized Christians to be valid isn’t accurate. In fact, it is just the opposite.
When two non-Catholics marry in some sort of religious ceremony, officiated by clergy, the clergy person is a LAYPERSON. They have no holy orders. There is nothing special about their presence or absence. The clergy person is the civil witness to the marriage, not the witness of the Church. The exchange of consent between the couple makes the marriage.
Whatever else they do, clergy or couple-- say a prayer, dance around and beat a drum, break a glass, jump a broom, sing a song, kneel, stand, or read reading out of the bible or the Twilight book, bless rings-- NONE of that has anything to do with validity. The non-Catholic clergy person has no ability to confer a blessing or confer a sacrament.
There is absolutely no difference between a couple exchanging vows before their clergy person and a couple exchanging their vows before a magistrate/justice of the peace. In both cases the couple is exchanging their vows before a layperson, who is simply a witness.
No not at all. There is no valid marriage and there is no presumption of validityHere’s what I don’t understand. If you are Catholic and marry civilly the Church doesn’t recognize your marriage and you cannot participate in the Sacraments. OK got that. But let’s say I marry at the courthouse and then we civilly divorce. I want to marry in the Church, suddenly my prior marriage becomes a marriage that has to be dissolved (failure to follow form).
I don’t think you really do “get” that. The reason such a person cannot participate in the Sacraments is not because they got married civilly, it’s because they continue to live together as man and wife. If they separate, even without a civil divorce, a simple Confession brings him/her right back into the Sacramental life of the Church.Here’s what I don’t understand. If you are Catholic and marry civilly the Church doesn’t recognize your marriage and you cannot participate in the Sacraments. OK got that.