If a marriage is known to be valid or not at the time of the exchange of vows it would seem highly irresponsible for the Church to proceed with performing invalid ones. Isn’t it the case that all Catholic marriages are presumed to be valid until there is an irretrievable breakdown?
Yes, the marriage is presumed to be valid until a tribunal rules otherwise. (unless it’s a lack of form case). But presumed to be valid isn’t the same as actually valid. The tribunal doesn’t look only at what was known at the time of the exchange of vows but what was unknown then but later came to light. What it does not address are conditions that developed after the marriage.
The Church does not proceed with marriages where there is a known impediment to validity. But sometimes people are not truthful with their pastors (or each other) during marriage preparation or there may be something they weren’t aware of or in denial of at the time.
I wonder if Mrs Kennedy was confused with Sacramental vs. natural marriage rather than the validity of marriage. I had never heard of the case but the basic situation seems to be that whatever element of the marriage that rendered it null in the eyes of the Church the first time, must have pertained to Mrs Kennedy in some way since she on her own testimony was able to get the decision overturned. You surely couldn’t argue about your spouses capacity to consent or something involved with their inner state at the time of the marriage. However, it must surely have some impact on the capacity to consent to sacramental meaning of marriage if one is not a Catholic at that time of the vow… something which can only have light shone on it by the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. It doesn’t go from valid to invalid. It is just recognised by subsequent events that what was presumed to be valid, was invalid.
No, whether the person is Catholic or not has no bearing on whether the person could consent to a valid marriage. We aren’t talking about anything that involves intricate knowledge of Catholic theology. The couple promises to be faithful and open to life and to be committed to each other until death separates them. That’s it.
Yes, it is possible for something to happen that sheds light on the validity of the marriage. But it must always point back to that time of the wedding.
Example: husband is having an affair at the time of the wedding. This isn’t found out by the wife until years later. But it points back to a lack of commitment to fidelity
at the time of the marriage. That marriage would probably be found to be invalid. (Not talking about the Kennedys here, just in general) On the other hand, husband is faithful for years and then decides to cheat on his wife. Adultery alone doesn’t **point back **to any defect present at the time of the marriage.
A marriage investigation doesn’t focus on why a marriage broke down. Those facts only matter if they are relevant to what was happening
at the time of the marriage. Most of the reasons marriages fail are not related to anything being wrong at the time of the marriage. They are more the result of human failings and giving into temptation after the marriage is already in place.
Maybe they’re on loan, I don’t know.
In googling I discovered this quote was from Veronica Lueken, a seer who was rejected as authentic by the Church. That ruined that sites credibility for me. Too deceptive.