Civil annulment = ecclesiastical annulment?

[abcdxyz]

If a couple receives a civil annulment, and the marriage is** legally** considered to be non-existent from the start, are the members of that couple able to marry in the Catholic Church as though they had never been married? I have heard this referenced in popular culture a couple of times recently, and I am not convinced that a couple who married and are, from the Church’s point of view, in a sacramental union are able to remarry in the Church without an ecclesiastical annulment regardless of whether their marriage is legally terminated by divorce, dissolution, or a civil annulment.

Thank you in advance for any clarification that you can offer.

 

[DarkLight]

The church does not recognize the state as having any power over the sacrament of marriage. Thus, just as a civil marriage would not be recognize by the church, neither would a civil annulment.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

No, a civil annulment is not the same as a Church decree of nullity. Civil law and canon law and jurisdiction are quite different.

 

[1ke]

No. Civil annulment has no bearing on the marriage from the Church’s standpoint.

 

[abcdxyz]

Thank you, I was pretty sure that was the case. I appreciate the time taken to answer this question for me.

 

[ack]

Are you sure that what you heard wasn’t the reverse (that an ecclesiastical annulment serves as a civil annulment or divorce as well – maybe true in some historically Catholic countries)?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’m having difficulty trying to understand this. I can understand the situation for Catholics who must marry in Catholic form; obviously a civil annulment is meaningless. However, for non-Catholics, in particular the unbaptized. I’m failing to grasp how the marriage is considered valid if there is no legal recognition of it (as differentiated from a divorce, which is the legal dissolution of a legally recognized marriage). The only way to reconcile this situation is that legal recognition has nothing to do with the validity of any marriage.

 

[DarkLight]

I’m having difficulty trying to understand this. I can understand the situation for Catholics who must marry in Catholic form; obviously a civil annulment is meaningless. However, for non-Catholics, in particular the unbaptized. I’m failing to grasp how the marriage is considered valid if there is no legal recognition of it (as differentiated from a divorce, which is the legal dissolution of a legally recognized marriage). The only way to reconcile this situation is that legal recognition has nothing to do with the validity of any marriage.

This is exactly the case. Marriage is contracted when the parties promise before witnesses to be married. While a legal ceremony may fulfill this requirement, its legal status has nothing to do with its status as a marriage before the church.

 

[dans0622]

It seems there are two distinct questions now being asked or implied:

What relevance does a civil declaration of nullity have in the Catholic Church?
How does the Church determine the validity of the marriages of two non-Catholics?

As noted already, a civil declaration of nullity does not necessarily have any weight. Such a decision could be used as evidence in an ecclesiastical process but the Church must examine that marriage as it would any other. In the end, both Church and State might come to the same conclusion and say the marriage was invalid/null from the beginning. But, the two decisions/processes are separate.

The second question (actually, both questions) can begin to be answered by Dignitas connubii, art. 4, which can be found here: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20050125_dignitas-connubii_en.html

In summary, that article states that the secular law which binds a person is considered by the ecclesiastical Judge and, as long as it does not contradict divine law, it is used in judging the validity of the marriage.

I would also point out that the law of the Church sees a difference between a “marriage” that was *never *recognized by the State and one that was recognized but then declared null (to keep it simple, let’s say that both Parties are unbaptized). The former would be equivalent to that of a Catholic who “married” with no regard for canonical form. The latter would be like any other marriage that enjoys the presumption of validity.

Dan

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This is exactly the case. Marriage is contracted when the parties promise before witnesses to be married. While a legal ceremony may fulfill this requirement, its legal status has nothing to do with its status as a marriage before the church.

“Legal ceremony” would not be the appropriate term in the case of civil annulment, since the civil marriage, and thus the ceremony, is deemed invalid.