Doomed to Limbo

[1ke]

The death of the 1st wife is a huge thing! It means that if it was a valid marrige (as is assumed) then the marriges after that were invalid. That means if you can prove the first marrige valid then he is most likely now free to marry you

No, that is not what it means at all.

The OP needs to talk to her pastor.

Youre situation has become straightforward and simple

I know you mean well, but this is misleading information and it can do more harm than good.

The death of the first spouse does not make the subsequent marriages easier to prove invalid nor make this a “straightforward” case.

this is one of the simplist and quickest cases you could have, thanks be to God.

No. It isn’t. The husband has a total of three prior marriages that must be investigated.

The easiest thing to do would be convalidation but radical sanation (the making of youre current marrige valid) may be a possibility.

Neither can be done until the husband is declared free to marry.

 

[1ke]

That is a huge deal that his first wife died. That gives things a much better chance.

The first wife’s death does not “give things a much better chance”. It doesn’t necessarily make it more difficult, either.

Just be sure to tell your pastor EVERYTHING so he can guide you as accurately as possible. The more info the tribunal has, the easier their job is.

Yes, the best course is to make an appointment with the pastor.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Hi again,
I did speak with my Pastor and we are getting things sorted out. The death, God rest her soul, IS a huge thing and makes it possible for me to go back to Church. I’m pretty sue the first marriage was valid, it was in the CofE and the celebrant was her dad!

Thank you for everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut. I’m walking on cloud nine now.

 

[tafan]

No, that is not what it means at all.

The OP needs to talk to her pastor.

I know you mean well, but this is misleading information and it can do more harm than good.

The death of the first spouse does not make the subsequent marriages easier to prove invalid nor make this a “straightforward” case.

No. It isn’t. The husband has a total of three prior marriages that must be investigated.

Neither can be done until the husband is declared free to marry.

1ke, you normally are very informative on your replies, so I ask this not to be argumentative, but just to understand things a little better. I would agree that the death of the first wife has no bearing on the subsequent two marriages. However, it seems to me that the second two marriages would stand a fairly good chance of being declared invalid (assuming the first wife was still alive at that time), simply because the first marriage was valid.

And now that that first wife has died, it does seem to be a big deal, since that marriage no longer would need to be declared invalid. And that marriage seems to be the only one that would present a difficulty.

It actually does seem likely to be a rather simple case to me. Although certainly it all needs to be worked out with the pastor and the local tribunal. What am I missing?

 

[Deltadeliquent]

I was told that the death means the two marriages in between that one and mine would not have to be investigated because they are automatically not valid since the first wife was still alive. So we have to document their marriage and her death and he will be free to marry (convalidate, as the case may be…) I just have to get the documents. Because this is in the UK and the death is so recent, her death certificate is not online. I will have to hire someone to get me a copy.

My first marriage is a straightforward defect of form ( in oh so many ways!) and then I will be free to marry or convalidate.

Because he is non baptised it will never be a sacramental marriage, but simply a valid, natural marriage. But either way, I’m able to make a good confession and start again in full communion with the Church. And this is what I am looking for.

I’m adding the first wife to my prayer intentions…she as unwittingly helped me in a deep and important way. Ad her brother, for that matter, because we never would have know if he hadn’t the decency to look up my husband and bother to call him.

God moves in mysterious ways…

 

[1ke]

However, it seems to me that the second two marriages would stand a fairly good chance of being declared invalid (assuming the first wife was still alive at that time), simply because the first marriage was valid.

We don’t know that the first marriage was valid.

And now that that first wife has died, it does seem to be a big deal, since that marriage no longer would need to be declared invalid. And that marriage seems to be the only one that would present a difficulty.

No. Death dissolved the first marriage, if it was valid. The second and third must be investigated on their own merits.

It actually does seem likely to be a rather simple case to me. Although certainly it all needs to be worked out with the pastor and the local tribunal. What am I missing?

Each marriage must be investigated. The second or third marriage could be valid.

 

[tafan]

Each marriage must be investigated. The second or third marriage could be valid.

If the first marriage is investigated and found to be valid, why? It seems you are suggesting it is possible for a non-catholic to be in more than one valid marraiage at a time, this is not the case.

 

[1ke]

If the first marriage is investigated and found to be valid, why? It seems you are suggesting it is possible for a non-catholic to be in more than one valid marraiage at a time, this is not the case.

The first marriage has been dissolved by the death of the first spouse.

 

[tafan]

The first marriage has been dissolved by the death of the first spouse.

But not at the time of the subsequent marriage, that seems clear from the OP posts. Or are you saying the 2nd marriage became valid at the time of the death? This is not right, I am sure.
It actually does seem like a very straight forward case to me. May not even require a declaration of nullity, just a Nil Obstat from the local tribunal on the convalidation.

 

[dans0622]

If it so happens that this man was free to marry his first wife, who was also free to marry, and they observed whatever form of marriage they were bound to follow, then the presumption of validity of that marriage would stand. The man would be considered bound to that marriage until the death of the wife. If he was no longer in a marital relationship with either of the subsequent “wives” when the death occurred, then it is possible that those two (attempted) marriages would both be declared invalid due to his prior bond.

Once the presumption of validity for the first marriage is affirmed, the impediment of prior bond is operative (until the death of the spouse) and is declared to apply to any and all subsequent attempts at marriage, rendering them invalid. Since these attempts exist and are part of the public record, they need to be addressed by the tribunal so that it is certainly and publicly established that this man is now free to marry. The “investigation” of the subsequent marriages is limited to determining when and where the weddings took place, when the Parties ceased living together, and when they divorced.

If everything falls into place, this is a straightforward process. But, nothing is “automatic.” It seems that each of this man’s marriages would be presumed to be valid (except the current one to the OP, due to lack of form). Overturning that presumption can only take place within a judicial process which, in this case, would be a documentary one (cf. cc. 1686-1688). The result would be declarations of nullity for both marriages.

I’m not a pastoral person but I offer this pastoral point to the OP: this man is on his fourth marriage. I advise caution.

Dan

 

[Deltadeliquent]

You guys should have been lawyers! I love all this sleuthing and intereptation.

Thanks, Dan for the concern… We have been married already, civilly for ten years. I just want to go back to full communion with the church. I am aware that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. But he is 56 now, and he has given no indication of an inclination to repeat the past.
I am going slow on this. I am a little afraid in the back of my mind that if we get all of this straightened out, and we get a dispensation for a convalidation I will be stuck if he decides the grass is greener again. Not very romantic, but my eyes are wide open.

I live on a remote island in British Columbia, and cannot get to Mass with the ferry schedules as they are. ( We do have plans to buy a boat this Fall however which would allow me to get to church on time.) So, in a way it’s a moot point. But I’d really like to make a good confession and come back fully.

 

[dans0622]

You guys should have been lawyers! I love all this sleuthing and intereptation.

Thanks, Dan for the concern… … but my eyes are wide open. …

Well, I am a canon lawyer so that’s my excuse.

I commend you for trying to get this straightened out and I am glad you are aware of the possible problems that lie ahead.

Dan

 

[1ke]

If it so happens that this man was free to marry his first wife, who was also free to marry, and they observed whatever form of marriage they were bound to follow, then the presumption of validity of that marriage would stand. The man would be considered bound to that marriage until the death of the wife. If he was no longer in a marital relationship with either of the subsequent “wives” when the death occurred, then it is possible that those two (attempted) marriages would both be declared invalid due to his prior bond.

Once the presumption of validity for the first marriage is affirmed, the impediment of prior bond is operative (until the death of the spouse) and is declared to apply to any and all subsequent attempts at marriage, rendering them invalid. Since these attempts exist and are part of the public record, they need to be addressed by the tribunal so that it is certainly and publicly established that this man is now free to marry. The “investigation” of the subsequent marriages is limited to determining when and where the weddings took place, when the Parties ceased living together, and when they divorced.

If everything falls into place, this is a straightforward process. But, nothing is “automatic.” It seems that each of this man’s marriages would be presumed to be valid (except the current one to the OP, due to lack of form). Overturning that presumption can only take place within a judicial process which, in this case, would be a documentary one (cf. cc. 1686-1688). The result would be declarations of nullity for both marriages.

I’m not a pastoral person but I offer this pastoral point to the OP: this man is on his fourth marriage. I advise caution.

Dan

Thank you Dan for saying much more coherently what I was trying to say.

 

[aemcpa]

If it so happens that this man was free to marry his first wife, who was also free to marry, and they observed whatever form of marriage they were bound to follow, then the presumption of validity of that marriage would stand.

Big if.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Why is it a big if?

 

[aemcpa]

Why is it a big if?

Because there are a lot of variables to consider, which Dan listed. But don’t worry - the tribunal does this every day and they have handled every situation under the sun.

 

[Vico]

Limbo no longer exists. It was a place were the souls of the just who died before Christ were temporally detained. Christ opened the gates of heaven to these holy souls.
The only parts on the afterlife which now exist are Heaven, Hell and Purgatory. Only the former two are everlasting as you can read in the Catechism.
Let nothing you dismay.
Peter.

Modern Catholic Dictionary has:

" … it is an article of the Catholic faith that those who die without baptism, and for whom the want of baptism has not been supplied in some other way, cannot enter heaven. This is the teaching of the ecumenical councils of Florence and Trent. The Church has never defined the existence of limbo, although she has more than once supported the fact by her authority."

therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[Peter_Devine]

True the Catechism does state that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to be saved. But this definition is assuming that Baptism by water is the only way of washing souls created by the Almighty to free them of the stain of Original Sin.
The Gospels tell us that When Christ died he released from Limbo the souls of the just including the named Prophets and countless millions of just souls who were judged worthy of Eternal Paradise. None of these souls could have been Baptised by water because John the Baptist is the first person in human history to Baptise with water. What about the souls of the Holy Innocence? The Church honours these Innocent little souls with their own feast day. They had never been baptised by water. What about the repentant thief? He had never been baptised by water yet Christ gave His solemn promise, “This day you will be with me in Paradise”. No Baptism necessary there then.
[edited] Only God can read souls and see if any individual soul has been baptised by the Holy Spirit. Water is merely the outward sigh of baptism.
Millions of innocent aborted souls have now been offered on the Sacrificial Alter of Satan. By your reasoning they are not worthy of Eternal Paradise because like the Holy Innocents they have not been baptised. This is entirely an error in what the Church teaches. Every soul that is martyred, is baptised by blood they shed at death, this is their baptism. The Church also teaches that there is baptism by Desire.
Any soul who has lived an exemplary life and has no unrepentant mortal sins at the moment of death has the presence of the Holy Spirit in them. These mature souls are baptised by desire through the Holy Spirit. They may have to spend time in Purgatory but not eternally barred from Paradise in Limbo as you say is their rightful place.
Peter Devine.