Annulments

  • Thread starter Thread starter CMatt25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Evan said:
I would say the the marriage was illicit. Since the annulment is eventually granted, the first marriage never took place. There was never a marriage even when there was the appearance of a marriage. Therefore, I say, the marriage was valid but not licit.

As for living in sin, yes… because they were disobedient to the forms and procedures put in place by the duly authorized Church of Christ to protect the sacrament of marriage.
Click to expand...
The OP didn’t say anything about being disobedient to forms and procedure, at least, not if I read him right. He’s just saying that if two Catholics marry in the Church, stay married for a long time, have kids, eventually divorce and are granted a declaration of nullity, does that mean they were living in sin? And they were not. If they were, no married couple would ever know until the day they died whether or not they were living in sin.
 
Incomplete said:
The OP didn’t say anything about being disobedient to forms and procedure, at least, not if I read him right. He’s just saying that if two Catholics marry in the Church, stay married for a long time, have kids, eventually divorce and are granted a declaration of nullity, does that mean they were living in sin? And they were not. If they were, no married couple would ever know until the day they died whether or not they were living in sin.
Click to expand...
You read him right. 🙂
 
Incomplete said:
Why would two Catholics have a Protestant wedding, even if they don’t practice the faith fully? People get married where they go to church.

If they both had permission from their Bishops, it would be a marriage in the eyes of the Church. But I would expect that would be unlikely. Since both are Catholic, there would be no reason to be married elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I can only answer by saying I just personally knew of a couple once who in not practicing fully, didn’t attend any church at the time. And their parish priest as a condition to marry them, requested they first get caught up to speed in their tithe or offertory contributions to the church. When they reached a determination they could not abide financially by his request, they sought out a Protestant minister. Yrs after when one of them passed, the other actually became a regular Mass goer and participant in another parish.
 
Wow. That’s too bad about the priest. He should not make financial requirements a condition of the marriage, at least not that kind of financial requirement. I do think he is in his rights to request that they be members of the parish (and not just in name only), and that would require some commitment…but to tell them they owe some kind of back pay is just wrong.

I’m glad the surviving member came back to the Church! I’m glad he could separate out what a priest did from what the Church is.
 
1ke said:
Dispensation from form can be granted when a Catholic marries a non-Catholic.

Two Catholics marrying each other cannot be dispense from Catholic form.
Click to expand...
I think this is technically incorrect. In cases “in danger of death”, form may be dispensed even if both parties are Catholic. However, in the general case (which is what we’d assume the original questioner was asking), you are correct.
 
CMatt25 said:
I can only answer by saying I just personally knew of a couple once who in not practicing fully, didn’t attend any church at the time. And their parish priest as a condition to marry them, requested they first get caught up to speed in their tithe or offertory contributions to the church.
Click to expand...
Obviously, I can’t speak to this particular case. However, some pastors will want to see that Catholics who are getting married in their parish – as parishioners of the parish – have some ties to the parish (and aren’t just using it as a convenient place to marry). To do so, they desire them to attend Mass; putting an envelope in the collection basket is a convenient way to demonstrate attendance at Mass. So, in those cases which I know of, the desire isn’t for financial gain, but rather, as a means of demonstrating attendence…
 
Evan said:
40.png
CMatt25:
So before an annulment is granted, a couple could have had a marriage ceremony performed in a Catholic church many yrs before, could have been living as a married couple for decades, could have produced many offspring, and yet were not validly married? So for all that time they’d have been living in sin?
Click to expand...
I would say the the marriage was illicit.
Click to expand...
Hmm… and you would be incorrect in saying so. Upthread, 1ke used the term “putative”, and she’s pretty close to the truth, in doing so.

The key here is the phrase “before an annulment is granted”. Since there is no annulment yet (in this example), the couple is still considered to be in a valid marriage – unless the contrary has been proven, marriage enjoys the favor of the law. Therefore, the Church would consider them in a valid marriage. No living in sin, no putative marriage.

However, once an annulment is granted – that is, once it has been proven that the marriage was invalid – then there’s the question of how to think about that period of time when everyone thought that the marriage was valid. That’s where the term “putative” comes in. It refers to the period of time in which the parties were living as a married couple, but it only is able to be used as a description once the annulment has been granted. It’s meant to answer exactly the kinds of questions we’re raising here – once there’s an annulment, do we think the couple had been living in sin way back then? Nope… their marriage was putative…!

It’s a subtle nuance – am I doing an OK job of making it clear?
 
1ke said:
Two Catholics who marry outside Catholic form are in an invalid marriage until they convalidate it according to Catholic form.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Two Catholics whose marriage has a defect of form are in that situation. This applies if they are truly trying to have a Catholic marriage, but some sort of error occurs. (For example, maybe the priest who witnessed the marriage didn’t have proper delegation.)

If they convalidate, their marriage becomes valid at the time of the convalidation. However, if they go the route of radical sanation, then the marriage is considered valid from the point of the original attempt – that is, sanation has retroactive effects.

On the other hand, if the Catholic parties in question aren’t even attempting to follow form, then their attempt at marriage isn’t invalid – they’re in the situation known as a “non-existent marriage”. They cannot have a convalidation, per se – when they attempt marriage validly, it’s their first attempt, so they need the whole ball of wax (marriage prep, proper form, consent, lack of impediments), and the marriage becomes valid only once these conditions are met.
 
Gorgias said:
I think this is technically incorrect. In cases “in danger of death”, form may be dispensed even if both parties are Catholic. However, in the general case (which is what we’d assume the original questioner was asking), you are correct.
Click to expand...
Canon 1116 covers this, and it isn’t a dispensation. It is a canon in the law covering the specific situation of danger of death. In that case, they must attempt to get a priest or deacon and if they cannot they can contract validly before two witnesses only.
 
DavidFilmer said:
It would be highly unusual for the marriage ceremony to be performed in a Catholic church if one of the couple were not free to marry.

No Catholic minister will witness a marriage if he is aware of a previous marriage which has not been examined and absolved.
Click to expand...
You’d be surprised. You’re making the assumption that the minister was attempting to follow the laws of the Church. Some don’t, for various reasons. (Of course, that means that the marriages they witness are at least illicit in some of these kinds of cases, if not outright invalid…)
 
I am exiting this thread now because the nit-picking has begun regarding answers that are being deemed “incomplete” or “incorrect” because they fail to address a meteor striking the earth on a Tuesday. Please note, the OP did not ask about meteors striking earth on a Tuesday, and the answers given are to the actual question asked, not every possible exception to that question.

Might be time for ke to go on sabbatical again.
 
1ke said:
Canon 1116 covers this, and it isn’t a dispensation. It is a canon in the law covering the specific situation of danger of death. In that case, they must attempt to get a priest or deacon and if they cannot they can contract validly before two witnesses only.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was thinking of c. 1079, not of the case of extraordinary form… 😉
 
1ke said:
I am exiting this thread now because the nit-picking has begun regarding answers that are being deemed “incomplete” or “incorrect” because they fail to address a meteor striking the earth on a Tuesday. Please note, the OP did not ask about meteors striking earth on a Tuesday, and the answers given are to the actual question asked, not every possible exception to that question.
Click to expand...
LOL! I hear ya … but then again, canon law is all about precision! Weirdness tends to ensue when people take a general statement and make an absolute claim… which leads them (or others) to reach the wrong conclusion in some other case in which the situation is similar but not quite the same. To my experience, this kind of misapplication of canon law is most common way that the Church’s understanding of marriage of misinterpreted.

So, the particular danger here is exactly the case in which someone who had a marriage on a meteor-strike Tuesday comes to this thread, and takes away the wrong conclusion based on what was said here. Sorry if I’m coming across a bit harsh, though…
 
Gorgias said:
Obviously, I can’t speak to this particular case. However, some pastors will want to see that Catholics who are getting married in their parish – as parishioners of the parish – have some ties to the parish (and aren’t just using it as a convenient place to marry). To do so, they desire them to attend Mass; putting an envelope in the collection basket is a convenient way to demonstrate attendance at Mass. So, in those cases which I know of, the desire isn’t for financial gain, but rather, as a means of demonstrating attendence…
Click to expand...
I know. Similarly the territorial parish for Catholics in my neighborhood I know has a similar policy for Baptisms. They require the parents to have been registered and using their envelope system for 6 mos prior to seeking Baptism for a child.

Thank you everyone for your responses.
 
CMatt25 said:
I’ve no doubt each would be questioned about a previous marriage. But I think others here have explained there are other reasons why a marriage might be ruled invalid by the Church.
Click to expand...
But what others (and you) fail to grasp is that these reasons must be presented to a Catholic Court, and a lawful decree of nullity returned. The process is similar to a US court - the marriage (regardless of circumstance) is presumed valid until proven otherwise in a court of (Canon) law. In most jurisdictions, this Court would be a marriage tribunal, comprised of three judges (usually Canon Lawyers, but not necessarily ordained clergy).

No priest is empowered to bypass this canonical procedure. No Catholic minister may lawfully witness a marriage if he is aware of a previous marriage (REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE) which has not been previously and formally declared null by legitimate canonical authority.

I realize that there are many ordained Catholic ministers who bend the rules, but I seriously doubt that there is one single ordained Catholic minister who would willfully witness a marriage when one (or both) participants were not clearly free to marry.
 
Gorgias said:
Not quite. Two Catholics whose marriage has a defect of form are in that situation. This applies if they are truly trying to have a Catholic marriage, but some sort of error occurs. (For example, maybe the priest who witnessed the marriage didn’t have proper delegation.)

If they convalidate, their marriage becomes valid at the time of the convalidation. However, if they go the route of radical sanation, then the marriage is considered valid from the point of the original attempt – that is, sanation has retroactive effects.

On the other hand, if the Catholic parties in question aren’t even attempting to follow form, then their attempt at marriage isn’t invalid – they’re in the situation known as a “non-existent marriage”. They cannot have a convalidation, per se – when they attempt marriage validly, it’s their first attempt, so they need the whole ball of wax (marriage prep, proper form, consent, lack of impediments), and the marriage becomes valid only once these conditions are met.
Click to expand...
Invalid = non-existant.

The difference between defect of form and lack of form is that the first results in a marriage that is presumed valid (putative marriage) and the second doesn’t. Both are invalid, both are corrected by a convalidation.

The first can be corrected by a radical sanation without either of the parties ever knowing it. This could happen in a case where the officiant becomes aware of the defect and takes measures to have the marriage become valid.

The second can also be corrected by radical sanation if one of the parties is refusing a convalidation - which can be the case where the non-Catholic spouse in a mixed-marriage considers the marriage to be valid. The Catholic spouse who wants to make things right may be able to obtain a radical sanation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top