Another Annulment Question

[travellinmike]

Reading the other thread on Annulments got me thinking about my first marriage and if I’m OK in my current marriage or if I should be abstaining from Communion.

I was married in 1989 to a non-Catholic in a noon-Catholic church. we divorced a few years later. I believe it was final in 1994.

I married my current wife in 1997. She is Catholic and we were married in a Catholic church.

Our preparation consisted of meeting with the priest 2 times. The first was to find out what documentation we needed to provide that I was divorced. The second was to give him copies of said documentation. I don’t remember meeting with him other than that.

We attended a Saturday Q&A session with a few other couples. This was facilitated by a couple from the parish I assume. Lots of multiple choice questions. Then some discussion about the answers. Maybe one other Saturday class and that was about it. I know for a fact that it wasn’t 8 months of Pre-Cana that I’ve read about in other threads.

Nobody ever mentioned annulment or internal forum. If there was an issue with my prior marriage, wouldn’t the priest have made us jump through the necessary hoops.

Am I married in the eyes of the Church and OK for Communion? Or am I living in sin (in the eyes of the church) and therefore should not recieve Communion?

Thanks,
Mike

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Mike,

The answer, as far as I can see from what you’ve said, is yes – you are not validly married and should, therefore, be abstaining from communion. See a priest or a deacon about an annulment for your first marriage. It is probably a lack of form case (documentary) and, if so, shouldn’t take too long. After that, you can have your present marriage convalidated.

Deacon Ed

 

[Catholic2003]

If you were already Catholic at the time of your first wedding (outside the Church), then you are good to go. You can receive Holy Communion and there is nothing you need to follow up on.

If you were not Catholic at the time of your first wedding, then indeed the priest who married you would seem to have messed up, and you would need to abstain while pursuing an annulment.

 

[travellinmike]

Yes I’ve been a Catholic since birth.

So if I understand correctly, since my first marriage occurred outside the Church, it isn’t recognized as valid (from a Catholic perspective)and therefore no need for annulment.

Thinking back, I did have to provide proof of my Baptism.

Thanks for your help clearing this up for me.

Mike

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

travellinmike:

Reading the other thread on Annulments got me thinking about my first marriage and if I’m OK in my current marriage or if I should be abstaining from Communion.

I was married in 1989 to a non-Catholic in a noon-Catholic church. we divorced a few years later. I believe it was final in 1994.

I married my current wife in 1997. She is Catholic and we were married in a Catholic church.

Our preparation consisted of meeting with the priest 2 times. The first was to find out what documentation we needed to provide that I was divorced. The second was to give him copies of said documentation. I don’t remember meeting with him other than that.

We attended a Saturday Q&A session with a few other couples. This was facilitated by a couple from the parish I assume. Lots of multiple choice questions. Then some discussion about the answers. Maybe one other Saturday class and that was about it. I know for a fact that it wasn’t 8 months of Pre-Cana that I’ve read about in other threads.

Nobody ever mentioned annulment or internal forum. If there was an issue with my prior marriage, wouldn’t the priest have made us jump through the necessary hoops.

Am I married in the eyes of the Church and OK for Communion? Or am I living in sin (in the eyes of the church) and therefore should not recieve Communion?

Thanks,
Mike

A key piece of information is missing! Were you Catholic at the time of the first Marriage? If so the Mariage may have been invalid simply because you were not married in the Church. If this was the case the priest should have provided you with a letter stating the invalidity of the first Marriage and the documented reasons.

 

[Catholic2003]

travellinmike:

Yes I’ve been a Catholic since birth.

Then you’re good to go.

travellinmike:

So if I understand correctly, since my first marriage occurred outside the Church, it isn’t recognized as valid (from a Catholic perspective)and therefore no need for annulment.

This is actually a quite complicated topic. There is something that is usually called a “lack of canonical form” annulment for Catholics who marry outside the Church, although technically it isn’t an annulment at all. I will describe what should have happened below.

travellinmike:

Thinking back, I did have to provide proof of my Baptism.

For your lack of canonical form annulment, you should have provided your prior marriage license, final divorce decree, and a recent copy of your baptismal certificate. At your interview with the priest, he should have had you sign an affidavit which stated that you had not defected from the Catholic Church by a formal act prior to your first wedding.

The priest would have then forwarded on these four documents to the diocesan tribunal, which would have rubber stamped your lack of canonical form annulment. If you had provided an old copy of your baptismal certificate, they would have sent off for a recent copy to check that the first marriage was not recorded on it. Since the process is automatic, you would not have had any further involvement past submitting the original paperwork.

However, even if this had not occurred properly, there is no need to do anything now. A lack of canonical form annulment is technically part of the prenuptial investigation as opposed to an actual annulment, and as such there isn’t anything that needs to be fixed up after the fact.

travellinmike:

Thanks for your help clearing this up for me.

You’re welcome.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Mike,

I’ve read through the answers you’ve been given, and they are all wrong. All attempted marriages must be examined by the Church. Because you were Catholic the prior marriage is invalid due to lack of form – but this statement must be issued by the Marriage Tribunal in your diocese. Your present marriage is *invalid *until such time as this has happened and you have had your current marriage convalidated (blessed).

Please, this is my area of specialization in the Latin Rite Church – go see a priest or deacon about getting your marriage validated. Until then, do not go to communion. If you doubt what I have written, call the Tribunal at your diocese and verify it with them.

Deacon Ed

 

[travellinmike]

Deacon Ed:

Mike,

I’ve read through the answers you’ve been given, and they are all wrong. All attempted marriages must be examined by the Church. Because you were Catholic the prior marriage is invalid due to lack of form – but this statement must be issued by the Marriage Tribunal in your diocese. Your present marriage is *invalid *until such time as this has happened and you have had your current marriage convalidated (blessed).

Please, this is my area of specialization in the Latin Rite Church – go see a priest or deacon about getting your marriage validated. Until then, do not go to communion. If you doubt what I have written, call the Tribunal at your diocese and verify it with them.

Deacon Ed

Thanks Ed,

I was happy to see the replies that said I was in the clear but I want to be 100% sure. Shoul I ask my current diocese Tribunal or the one where I got married? I think I’ll start with the Tribunal. I don’t think Fr Al is too happy with me as I keep asking pesky questions about the way Mass is conducted in our Parish.

Mike

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon Ed:

I’ve read through the answers you’ve been given, and they are all wrong.

I’m very sure that my answers are correct. However, I do agree that the best way for Mike to resolve this is to contact the diocesan tribunal directly, instead of relying on random people over the Internet.
Deacon Ed:

All attempted marriages must be examined by the Church. Because you were Catholic the prior marriage is invalid due to lack of form – but this statement must be issued by the Marriage Tribunal in your diocese.

Here is the canon law authentic interpretation relating to lack of form:

Documentary process or the pre-nuptial investigation (cc. 1066 and 1686)

The doubt: Whether, in order to prove the state of freedom of those who, although bound to the canonical form, attempted marriage before a civil official or a non-Catholic minister, the documentary process mentioned in c. 1686 is necessarily required, or the prenuptial investigation dealt with cc. 1066-1067 suffices.

The response: Negative to the first. Affirmative to the second.

July 11, 1984
AAS 76 (1984) 746-747.

In other words, an official annulment letter for the prior “lack of form” marriage is not necessarily required for the validity of the new marriage, although dioceses can certainly choose to provide such a letter anyway.

This has been the rule of the Church since the 1936 instruction Provida Mater.
Deacon Ed:

Your present marriage is *invalid *until such time as this has happened and you have had your current marriage convalidated (blessed).

There is no need for convalidation. The impediment of ligamen (prior bond) is only present when the prior marriage is valid. A putative but invalid prior marriage does not create this impediment, so there would be no point in having a convalidation.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The issue here is whether or not the requirements of canon 1085 have been met:

**Can. 1085 **§1 A person bound by the cond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

§2 Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty.

Mike has not made it clear that this took place. In fact, he hasn’t indicated that the priest he met with (twice) even knew of the previous marriage and took the necessary lawful and certain steps to determine its status.

Thus, my statement that the answers were wrong – until and unless there is certainty of this the present marriage is invalid (not just illicit) because this is an impediment.

Deacon Ed

 

[Billicus]

Deacon Ed:

I’ve read through the answers you’ve been given, and they are all wrong. All attempted marriages must be examined by the Church. Because you were Catholic the prior marriage is invalid due to lack of form – but this statement must be issued by the Marriage Tribunal in your diocese. Your present marriage is *invalid *until such time as this has happened and you have had your current marriage convalidated (blessed).

I concur with Deacon Ed. Don’t worry, though. It doesn’t take as long as a standard annulment. Mine took 30 days (albeit in a much smaller diocese).

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon Ed:

The issue here is whether or not the requirements of canon 1085 have been met

And a related issue is what, if anything, needs to be done now if it turns out that those requirements have not been met.
Deacon Ed:

Mike has not made it clear that this took place. In fact, he hasn’t indicated that the priest he met with (twice) even knew of the previous marriage and took the necessary lawful and certain steps to determine its status.

Mike wrote in his first post:

travellinmike:

Our preparation consisted of meeting with the priest 2 times. The first was to find out what documentation we needed to provide that I was divorced. The second was to give him copies of said documentation. I don’t remember meeting with him other than that.

So I have been assuming that the priest was aware of the circumstances of Mike’s first marriage and divorce.
Deacon Ed:

Thus, my statement that the answers were wrong – until and unless there is certainty of this the present marriage is invalid (not just illicit) because this is an impediment.

Here is what the new CLSA commentary says about canon 1085 (emphasis added):

The impediment of prior bond arises only from a valid marriage, whether it is consummated or not. Its existence is presumed once the marriage has been lawfully celebrated (c. 1060). A declaration of nullity is an assertion that a particular union gave rise to no bond. Thus, when a marriage is declared null, a new marriage entered after the civil divorce but before the formal declaration of nullity may be valid.

To avoid confusion and uncertainty about the validity of second and subsequent marriages, canon 1085, §2 prohibits the celebration of a new marriage until the nullity or dissolution of all the party’s previous marriages is legitimately proven. Some see this prohibition as an ecclesiastical law impediment of prior bond, which complements the divine law impediment. Whether or not it should be classified as an impediment, the prohibition does not invalidate marriages entered into in violation of it (c. 10) and does not bind non-Catholics when they marry among themselves (c. 11). If a Catholic re-marries according to the canonical form after a divorce but before a declaration of nullity is granted, the marriage is illicit but valid and need not be convalidated after the previous marriage is declared null.

Thus, the impediment of canon 1085 §1 does not invalidate Mike’s current marriage, because Mike’s first marriage was clearly invalid.

If the requirements of canon 1085 §2 were not met, then this does not invalidate Mike’s current marriage, but only makes it illicit (unlawful, sinful). If Mike did not tell the priest of his first marriage, then the sin belongs to Mike, and he should go to confession. If Mike did tell the priest, but the priest “dropped the ball”, then the sin belongs to the priest. In either case, Mike’s current marriage is valid, and (as explicitly stated in the CLSA commentary) does not need to be convalidated.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Yes, I read that in the commentary – and the tribunal office in my diocese disagreed with that conclusion. It is also contrary to what I was taught.

However, it seems we are in agreement that the prior attempted marriage must be examined by the Church and a declaration issued regarding its invalidity (lack of form). That declaration may come from the tribunal (as it must in my diocese) or, if permitted, from the priest or deacon preparing them for marriage and noted in the package.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Yes, I read that in the commentary – and the tribunal office in my diocese disagreed with that conclusion. It is also contrary to what I was taught.

However, it seems we are in agreement that the prior attempted marriage must be examined by the Church and a declaration issued regarding its invalidity (lack of form). That declaration may come from the tribunal (as it must in my diocese) or, if permitted, from the priest or deacon preparing them for marriage and noted in the package.

Deacon Ed

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon Ed:

Yes, I read that in the commentary – and the tribunal office in my diocese disagreed with that conclusion. It is also contrary to what I was taught.

Are you saying that your diocesan tribunal would grant Mike an annulment of his current marriage based on canon 1085, if indeed the paperwork on his first marriage had been omitted by the priest?

 

[Fortiterinre]

Thank you for this fascinating (and I don’t mean that sarcastically!) discussion. I have been searching the web to educate myself on some of these questions–the Diocese of Lake Charles, Louisiana has a very nice annulment site. The last question may be the most important–how could the current marriage be anulled for ligamen if in fact there is no previous bond? Mike stated that he showed the marrying priest proof of divorce, so I don’t understand what more he should have done, and he seems to be validly married.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Fortiterinre:

Thank you for this fascinating (and I don’t mean that sarcastically!) discussion. I have been searching the web to educate myself on some of these questions–the Diocese of Lake Charles, Louisiana has a very nice annulment site. The last question may be the most important–how could the current marriage be anulled for ligamen if in fact there is no previous bond? Mike stated that he showed the marrying priest proof of divorce, so I don’t understand what more he should have done, and he seems to be validly married.

The issue was never one of a ligamen, but rather of an official declaration with regard to the attempted marriage. It is clear to all that the first marriage was invalid due to lack of form (unless Mike left the Church by some formal act). But the requirements are that this be officially declared. It may be that the prenuptual investigation verified this (since it is documentary all that is needed is a marriage certificate, final divorce decree and an affidavit by those who know that the marriage was never blessed by the Church). In my diocese the Office of Canonical Services will simply review the documents and send an offical letter. It is not, technically speaking, an annulment nor is it part of the formal annulment process.

In Mike’s first post he said he gave document that he was divorced. He didn’t mention anything about an affidavit that says the marriage was never blessed by the Church. This is what caused me to take the position I have taken. Catholic2003 is precisely correct with regard to the statement from Rome that a prenuptual investigation is sufficient – but without that affidavit the investigation is incomplete.

Does that help to clarify the questions you asked?

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Catholic2003:

Are you saying that your diocesan tribunal would grant Mike an annulment of his current marriage based on canon 1085, if indeed the paperwork on his first marriage had been omitted by the priest?

No, what I was saying is precisely what the commentary on page 1266 says:

The council replied that the process outlines in canons 1066-1067 would suffice to prove the freedom to marry of someone who was bound to the canonical form of marriage yet who contracted a marriage without observing this form. Nevertheless, many diocesan bishops have reserved the determination of freedom to marry in these cases to the chancery or to the tribunal.

It is for this reason that I suggested Mike contact the Tribunal – they will know if the case has to go before them or can be processed through the prenuptual investigation process.

Now, if I understand the question you are asking: if either the bishop had reserved such cases or the necessary paperwork had not been provided, it would require the tribunal to a) grant the decree of nullity due to lack of form and, as a matter of general principle, b) sanate the marriage.

Deacon Ed

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon Ed:

No, what I was saying is precisely what the commentary on page 1266 says:It is for this reason that I suggested Mike contact the Tribunal – they will know if the case has to go before them or can be processed through the prenuptual investigation process.

Assume the “worst case scenario”: Mike’s diocese does require the involvement of the tribunal to assess his first marriage, and his priest did not forward any of the paperwork to the tribunal as he should have.

Yet in this “worst case”, the CLSA commentary states that Mike is nonetheless validly married. And being validly married, there is no need for Mike to convalidate his marriage nor for him to abstain from Holy Communion. (Thus my comment to Mike that he is “good to go”.) I take it that this is the part of the CLSA commentary that you and your tribunal office disagree with. Is there anywhere where I can read about your disagreement, e.g., an alternative canon law commentary, or an article in the Jurist, Studia Canonica, or the like?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Catholic2003:

Assume the “worst case scenario”: Mike’s diocese does require the involvement of the tribunal to assess his first marriage, and his priest did not forward any of the paperwork to the tribunal as he should have.

Yet in this “worst case”, the CLSA commentary states that Mike is nonetheless validly married. And being validly married, there is no need for Mike to convalidate his marriage nor for him to abstain from Holy Communion. (Thus my comment to Mike that he is “good to go”.) I take it that this is the part of the CLSA commentary that you and your tribunal office disagree with. Is there anywhere where I can read about your disagreement, e.g., an alternative canon law commentary, or an article in the Jurist, Studia Canonica, or the like?

No, as far as I know of, there is no published disagreement, just a policy within the diocese that we are to submit all such cases to the Tribunal for evaluation.

Deacon Ed