E
eliza
Guest
I’m confused on the doctrine when it comes to what opens up grounds to an annulment. Is a marriage invalid if a spouse had cheated before they were married, but didn’t say anything?
- Status
S
stpurl
Guest
Talk to a priest. It is possible that the marriage is invalid on the grounds that if the bride knew that her intended had cheated that she would not have married him, or because his cheating indicated a psychological defect that would have impeded giving his full consent, but it is not our jurisdiction. The only way to get an answer is to approach one’s priest and have him find out from the experts.
Also in order to obtain a decree of nullity one needs a civil divorce first.
So again, best talk to a priest.
Also in order to obtain a decree of nullity one needs a civil divorce first.
So again, best talk to a priest.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Many Dioceses provide a handy reference guide, you may want to check our your Diocese website.
The grounds to petition for an investigation into the validity of a marriage are clearly laid out in Canon Law:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3Z.HTM
The grounds to petition for an investigation into the validity of a marriage are clearly laid out in Canon Law:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3Z.HTM
Last edited:
E
eliza
Guest
would that mean they never received the sacrament of matrimony? what would they have to do in order to make the marriage valid?
1
1ke
Guest
V
Vico
Guest
Last edited:
R
redcatholic
Guest
Sadly, the Church requires you divorce to formally look into a validity of a marriage. However marriages enjoy a presumption of validity.
Y
YADA
Guest
I am not sure that it is sad that a divorce is required first. There exists two aspects the civil legal sense and the sacramental …
At times divorce maybe necessary even when a couple have a valid sacramental marriage - for example when protection from physical or emotional harm might occur …and the mere determination of a sacramental defect of the marriage would not address the legal / civil aspect.
While the Church wedding appears to accomplish simultaneously both the Sacramental and Civil aspects it is not possible for the Church to do the reverse thus to protect legal rights of both parties and any offspring, it makes sense for the Church to only determine sacramental validity after the civil aspect has been severed …
At times divorce maybe necessary even when a couple have a valid sacramental marriage - for example when protection from physical or emotional harm might occur …and the mere determination of a sacramental defect of the marriage would not address the legal / civil aspect.
While the Church wedding appears to accomplish simultaneously both the Sacramental and Civil aspects it is not possible for the Church to do the reverse thus to protect legal rights of both parties and any offspring, it makes sense for the Church to only determine sacramental validity after the civil aspect has been severed …
I think the Church should take a second look at this policy (and that’s what is, just a policy of sorts, purely disciplinary) and be willing, at least in some cases, to look at marriages where the couple is not divorced, and judge as to validity. Then the couple could be told, look, your marriage is valid, please continue to stay together (or reconcile as the case might be) — you’ll never be able to remarry, and if you divorce, you’ll just have to stay single for life. Or in the alternative, your marriage as it stands right now is invalid, you can either regularize it, or if you are dead-set on going your separate ways, we wish you wouldn’t, but you are free to do so, and you have the possibility of remarrying, if that’s what you want to do.
I believe I heard one time (don’t recall where) that the Church does not grant declarations of nullity for existing marriages, because she doesn’t want to leave herself open to accusations of having enabled a divorce. Some jurisdictions have laws against “alienation of affection” (“heart balm” laws) and the Church could easily be accused of “egging on” the divorce. It would take both spouses and the Church sitting down and explicitly agreeing the Church would be held harmless (preferably in writing).
I am neither a civil nor a canon lawyer, but that’s the only sense I can make of it.
R
redcatholic
Guest
Yeah. I think with the onslaught of civil marriages that are unnatural (gay marriage). That it can be said the Church and the state have separate definitions of what marriage is, add to that the absurdity of having the state move first and then that dictate to the Church if she can examine the validity of a sacrament. And add to THAT what Covid has shown us and I think the Church should divorce itself (pun intended) from the state especially in this matter. If I want to investigate the validity of any one of the other sacraments the Church does not require an action by the state.
On further reflection, you’re absolutely right — it is absurd.
The Church judges all the time that marriages of its faithful, contracted outside the Church, yet civilly recognized, are invalid (lack of canonical form), But she does not wish to explore — even for the sake of clearing up ambiguity and allowing the spouses to “get married for real this time” (if that’s what they want) — whether a putatively valid sacramental marriage is, in fact, valid or not. Seems to me you’d want to find out the truth of the matter, either up or down, and proceed from there.
And couldn’t the Church be accused of “alienation of affection” by telling invalidly married people (such as those who have chosen to marry outside of canonical form) that they have to regularize their situation, to be able to return to the sacraments? Suppose they then say “you know something, you’re right, this is an invalid marriage, we want to go our separate ways and marry other partners validly”? Has the Church not “alienated affection” in that case too?
Last edited:
I have even tumbled around in my mind the possibility that someone who helps an invalidly married Catholic to see the error of their ways, and whose invalid non-spouse does not wish their partner to “get right with God and the Church”, to leave that relationship, is actually performing a spiritual work of mercy, of sorts. You can always get a sanatio in radice, but what if you don’t want to stay with that spouse? What if, having “reverted”, one wishes to have a happy, valid marriage in the Church with a fellow Catholic, someone who will actually help them get to heaven, instead of being an obstacle? What if that invalid spouse is militating for contraception? Trying to get you to abandon Catholicism either for atheism, secularism, or a non-Catholic religion? Trying to wheedle you into doing other things contrary to faith and morals, such as not going to Mass, telling serial lies for business or personal advantage, dealing drugs, or cheating on taxes or stealing to advance the bottom line of the family business? I can well imagine that someone might want to “get out of it” — "I am not going to live like this anymore, I am not staying with this person who is trying to make me sin, I want to move on, and there’s no reason not to do so, my marriage is invalid anyway — I don’t want to ‘fix it’ or get it ‘sanated’, I want out!". I know I certainly would.
Admittedly, this becomes more complicated if the invalid partners have had children together, because those children have two parents, even if one of those parents is hostile to the Faith and would prefer that their spouse hadn’t “gotten religion” and reverted.
Admittedly, this becomes more complicated if the invalid partners have had children together, because those children have two parents, even if one of those parents is hostile to the Faith and would prefer that their spouse hadn’t “gotten religion” and reverted.
Last edited:
E
eliza
Guest
But what about a situation where the spouse had been unfaithful before the marriage, and ended the affair but never told his or her spouse about it? I heard that would place them in a situation where there wouldn’t be full consent since there wasn’t full knowledge of the situation. But would that mean they’d live the rest of their lives without the graces of matrimony?
R
redcatholic
Guest
No, premarital affairs that have been terminated and there is intent and amendment by the intended spouse are not an invalidation of a marriage as long as the person who had the affair does not intend to have affairs at the time of the vows.
V
Vico
Guest
So that means a marriage celebrated with the required form (because it is not a lack of form case which cannot be putative). It cannot always be known due to the fact that one of the spouses is lying and there is no way to proove it.
My point is, even if a marriage is celebrated accordingly to sacramental, canonical form, with two partners who, to all outward appearances (and even in their own minds at the time of the wedding) are willing and able to contract a valid marriage — still, such marriages can be invalid, and in fact, are found invalid every day in tribunals throughout the world. Not all things are known at the time of the wedding, not all things are fully realized or comprehended. Things later make themselves manifest, such as psychological factors, that everyone concerned, might have been in denial about, or totally ignorant of, at the time of the marriage.HomeschoolDad:
So that means a marriage celebrated with the required form (because it is not a lack of form case which cannot be putative). It cannot always be known due to the fact that one of the spouses is lying and there is no way to proove it.
Some people who object to the concept of annulment will protest that, in effect, there surely, undoubtedly, has to be a “burn-in period” of sorts, after which you cannot declare a marriage invalid. I’m very thankful they are incorrect about that. Confecting sacraments takes an event at a certain moment in time, not a processing unfolding or evolving over a matter of years. Sacraments happen “right then and there”, including matrimony. And, thankfully, we don’t have a “doctrine of laches” (to transplant a term from civil law), and don’t tell people “you’ve been married X number of years, and here all this time later, all of a sudden you’re complaining and telling us you think your marriage may have been invalid”. (One might be murmuring, “what happened, did you find someone you like better, and you want out of your marriage so you can have them instead?”) The Catholic religion is hard enough as it is, without introducing human conceits that make it harder than it actually is.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
True, and that moment may be later than the actual celebration, such as with radical sanation.
That is a legal fiction and is an incidence of the Church’s power to bind and to loose. I’m not sure that a sanatio in radice actually goes back to the very beginning and “confects the sacrament” from Day One. I’m not sure that is even possible. But if it is, it really doesn’t matter anyway, because the past is gone, and all we have are the present and the future.HomeschoolDad:
True, and that moment may be later than the actual celebration, such as with radical sanation.
I’m not clear on why anyone would ever want to do this, aside from cases where they have invalidly married, and for whatever reason, their spouse is hostile to the idea of “not having really been married” all those years. I’m just going to say this, and it may not be to everyone’s liking, but if I had gotten myself in that situation — invalidly married to a spouse who disliked the concept of a sacramental Catholic marriage (or, I suppose, even a valid and licit non-sacramental marriage blessed by the Church, if the spouse were not) — I might wish to find a “way out”, so that I could have a life and home with someone who shares that faith. Obviously the having of children would make that more difficult and undesirable.
This said, people have as many reasons for getting married, and staying together, than there are stars in the sky, and I am perfectly content to let their business be their business, and to let my business be mine. Thankfully I’m not in that situation and do not ever plan to be. My wife and I had our issues, but disparity of religious faith was not one of them. There’s a joy about kneeling in Eucharistic Adoration with your spouse, and saying the entire rosary, that I wouldn’t trade for all the “compatibility” and “soul-mated-ness” in the world.
V
Vico
Guest
The actual marriage is from the time of the grant of the radical sanation, but the consent is from before. A priest may use radical sanation to correct a lack of delegation or the discovery of an undispensed impediment – even without the spouses knowledge. Reasons to use radical sanation are:
- Refusal of spouse to give new consent
- Strong possibility of Defective Convalidation
- Danger of scandal or disturbance of conscience
Last edited:
- Status