T
TheAdvocate
Guest
When someone’s marriage is declared null (=annulment), does that mean that the sacrament was not valid from the start, or not sacramental from the start?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JimG
Guest
It means it was not valid. The marriage did not exist. Decrees of nullity have nothing to do with sacramentality. (Of course, if a marriage did not exist from the start it was obviously not sacramental. But the decree has only to do with validity.)When someone’s marriage is declared null (=annulment), does that mean that the sacrament was not valid from the start, or not sacramental from the start?
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
So say Dick and Jane (who are not Catholic) got married in a courthouse–this would be a valid, natural marriage. Jane falls in love with a Catholic man, Frank. Bored with Dick, she divorces him and wishes to marry Frank. Since she didn’t have good grounds for divorcing Dick, couldn’t the tribunal refuse to grant her an annulment…even thought their marriage was merely civil?It means it was not valid. The marriage did not exist. Decrees of nullity have nothing to do with sacramentality. (Of course, if a marriage did not exist from the start it was obviously not sacramental. But the decree has only to do with validity.)
J
JimG
Guest
A tribunal could indeed determine that Jane’s prior civil marriage to Dick was valid. Neither of them were Catholic or subject to Catholic canon law, so there would be no defect of form, as there would be if her first marriage had been a civil marriage to a Catholic.So say Dick and Jane (who are not Catholic) got married in a courthouse–this would be a valid, natural marriage. Jane falls in love with a Catholic man, Frank. Bored with Dick, she divorces him and wishes to marry Frank. Since she didn’t have good grounds for divorcing Dick, couldn’t the tribunal refuse to grant her an annulment…even thought their marriage was merely civil?
I should point out that a civil marriage need not be sacramental to be valid. Sacramentality is determined by the baptismal status of the parties.
But any further hypotheticals ought to be answered by a canon lawyer, not me.
P
Phemie
Guest
It could well be a valid sacramental marriage. It depends on whether or not Dick and Jane are both baptized or not. If both are baptized it would be sacramental.So say Dick and Jane (who are not Catholic) got married in a courthouse–this would be a valid, natural marriage.
J
JimG
Guest
To clarify a little more, here is a quote from Edward Peters canon law blog:
“Not only is the sacramentality of a marriage NOT determined in an annulment case, the question of its sacramentality is not even RAISED in the process. The annulment process is about the validity of marriage and only about validity; a successful petition results in a “declaration of nullity”, not in a declaration of non-sacramentality.”
Source
“Not only is the sacramentality of a marriage NOT determined in an annulment case, the question of its sacramentality is not even RAISED in the process. The annulment process is about the validity of marriage and only about validity; a successful petition results in a “declaration of nullity”, not in a declaration of non-sacramentality.”
Source
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
Jim, thanks for your source. Pure gold.To clarify a little more, here is a quote from Edward Peters canon law blog:
“Not only is the sacramentality of a marriage NOT determined in an annulment case, the question of its sacramentality is not even RAISED in the process. The annulment process is about the validity of marriage and only about validity; a successful petition results in a “declaration of nullity”, not in a declaration of non-sacramentality.”
Source
1
1ke
Guest
that depends.So say Dick and Jane (who are not Catholic) got married in a courthouse–this would be a valid, natural marriage.
If Dick and Jane were baptized non-Catholics it would be valid and a sacrament.
If either Dick, Jane, or both were unbaptized it would be a valid natural marriage.
Natural marriage only pertains to marriages involving unbaptized people. Any valid marriage between two baptized people is a sacrament.
Non-catholics marry validly when they marry civilly. That has nothing to do with validity. You are correct, if she has no grounds she cannot petition for a decree of nullity for her first marriage.Jane falls in love with a Catholic man, Frank. Bored with Dick, she divorces him and wishes to marry Frank. Since she didn’t have good grounds for divorcing Dick, couldn’t the tribunal refuse to grant her an annulment…even thought their marriage was merely civil?
If her first marriage involved one or both unbaptized individuals, she might have the ability to petition for a dissolution of the bond under the Pauline or Petrine privilege. That is something totally different.
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
So that means that if two baptized Protestants get married civilly at their local courthouse, it would be a sacramental marriage?that depends.
If Dick and Jane were baptized non-Catholics it would be valid and a sacrament.
If either Dick, Jane, or both were unbaptized it would be a valid natural marriage.
Natural marriage only pertains to marriages involving unbaptized people. Any valid marriage between two baptized people is a sacrament.
Non-catholics marry validly when they marry civilly. That has nothing to do with validity. You are correct, if she has no grounds she cannot petition for a decree of nullity for her first marriage.
If her first marriage involved one or both unbaptized individuals, she might have the ability to petition for a dissolution of the bond under the Pauline or Petrine privilege. That is something totally different.
1
1ke
Guest
Yes.So that means that if two baptized Protestants get married civilly at their local courthouse, it would be a sacramental marriage?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Yes, but not the Sacrament of Marriage as Catholics understand it. Hypothetically if they were divorced and one or both attempted marriage in the Church, they could correctly argue that they did not understand or know what marriage really is the first time around
P
phil19034
Guest
More or less, yesSo that means that if two baptized Protestants get married civilly at their local courthouse, it would be a sacramental marriage?
1
1ke
Guest
This is not what the Church teaches. Baptized non Catholics marry validly when they marry civilly and those marriages are a sacrament. Not like a sacrament, or a different sacrament, but 100% the same sacrament as two Catholics who marry validly.Yes, but not the Sacrament of Marriage as Catholics understand it.
Which is not relevant, and moreover can and is argued by Catholics seeking nullity decrees as well.Hypothetically if they were divorced and one or both attempted marriage in the Church, they could correctly argue that they did not understand or know what marriage really is the first time around
1
1ke
Guest
Not “more or less” but rather an unqualified yes. That is what the Church teaches.More or less, yes
P
phil19034
Guest
I might be wrong, but I believe that the Church actually teaches that two non-Catholics marrying in a court house is valid as long as their religion considers it valid. For example, it wouldn’t be valid if two Orthodox did it.Not “more or less” but rather an unqualified yes. That is what the Church teaches.
Since Protestants typically don’t have rules about marriage, that’s why it’s valid. But I believe if the Protestants started saying that court house marriages are not valid, the Catholic Church would view them as not valid too.
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
But that doesn’t seem fair. Why would this not apply to Catholics? What’s the harm in letting two Catholics just get married civilly and have it count as a valid sacrament? I just don’t see why a Protestant–just by virtue of their Baptism–can undergo a civil ceremony where Christ isn’t mentioned once, and yet for them it’s called a sacrament, but if Catholics attempt the same…no dice!!Yes.
1
1ke
Guest
No, not exactly.I might be wrong, but I believe that the Church actually teaches that two non-Catholics marrying in a court house is valid as long as their religion considers it valid. For example, it wouldn’t be valid if two Orthodox did it.
The Orthodox, which are valid Churches with valid Orders, can (and do) have requirements of form. See my universal disclaimer in my posting footer.
Actually, no, as they lack valid Orders and are not Churches.Since Protestants typically don’t have rules about marriage, that’s why it’s valid. But I believe if the Protestants started saying that court house marriages are not valid, the Catholic Church would view them as not valid too.
P
Phemie
Guest
Because the Catholic Church only makes rules for Catholics and the rule for us is that we must be married in the Church or have a dispensation from canonical form. It’s about obedience to our Church.But that doesn’t seem fair. Why would this not apply to Catholics? What’s the harm in letting two Catholics just get married civilly and have it count as a valid sacrament? I just don’t see why a Protestant–just by virtue of their Baptism–can undergo a civil ceremony where Christ isn’t mentioned once, and yet for them it’s called a sacrament, but if Catholics attempt the same…no dice!!
There is an exception. If a priest or deacon will not be available to witness the couple’s exchange of consent for an extended period (30 or more days) they can get validly married civilly.
1
1ke
Guest
It is not fair or unfair, it simply is.But that doesn’t seem fair.
Because the Church requires a particular form and witnesses. The Church has a long history and in the time before she had such rules there were problems. Hence, form.Why would this not apply to Catholics? What’s the harm in letting two Catholics just get married civilly and have it count as a valid sacrament?
Because Catholics are under the authority of their bishop, who says “no dice”. Were Church law to change, then “dice”.I just don’t see why a Protestant–just by virtue of their Baptism–can undergo a civil ceremony where Christ isn’t mentioned once, and yet for them it’s called a sacrament, but if Catholics attempt the same…no dice!!
P
phil19034
Guest
It’s because Christ didn’t create the Sacarment of Holy Matrimony. He “simply” raised Matrimony to a Sacrament for the Baptized.But that doesn’t seem fair. Why would this not apply to Catholics? What’s the harm in letting two Catholics just get married civilly and have it count as a valid sacrament? I just don’t see why a Protestant–just by virtue of their Baptism–can undergo a civil ceremony where Christ isn’t mentioned once, and yet for them it’s called a sacrament, but if Catholics attempt the same…no dice!!
Marriages are considered valid unless there is reason to believe they are not. When a Catholic marries outside the Church, then there is reason to believe that the Catholic did not understand Christian marriage when he/she got married. Same with the Orthodox too.
But when a Protestant gets married in a court house, that’s not evidence that they don’t understand what marriage is about.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.