Edited: Marriage question: Annulment necessary for civil unions?

[Matthew_Holford]

There seems to be some confusion about lack of canonical form cases. As Canon 1060 says all marriages enjoy the favour of the law. It also says they must be upheld until the contrary is proven. Of course, every invalid marriage is invalid from the moment at which a marriage appeared to take place. But, no one declares a marriage invalid until someone impugns it.

In some places the lack of canonical form cases may be dealt with in a very straightforward way. That, however, does not alter a number of facts. Even though the facts may be clear and easily dealt with until someone impugns even a lack of canonical marriage Canon 1060 applies. And, they are not declared invalid unless someone applies for a declaration of nullity.

Foster (1999)* says that lack of canonical form cases still require a declaration of nullity from the tribunal to which the case is taken and confirmation from that tribunal’s appeal tribunal.

*Foster, M. S. (1999) Annulment The Wedding That Was: How the Church can declare a Marriage Null. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Paulist Press. ISBN 0-8091-3844-1

 

[Phemie]

There seems to be some confusion about lack of canonical form cases. As Canon 1060 says all marriages enjoy the favour of the law. It also says they must be upheld until the contrary is proven. Of course, every invalid marriage is invalid from the moment at which a marriage appeared to take place. But, no one declares a marriage invalid until someone impugns it.

In some places the lack of canonical form cases may be dealt with in a very straightforward way. That, however, does not alter a number of facts. Even though the facts may be clear and easily dealt with until someone impugns even a lack of canonical marriage Canon 1060 applies. And, they are not declared invalid unless someone applies for a declaration of nullity.

Foster (1999)* says that lack of canonical form cases still require a declaration of nullity from the tribunal to which the case is taken and confirmation from that tribunal’s appeal tribunal.

*Foster, M. S. (1999) Annulment The Wedding That Was: How the Church can declare a Marriage Null. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Paulist Press. ISBN 0-8091-3844-1

Well in 1984, *an *authentic interpretation of canon 1686 (Pontifical Commission … of the Code of Canon Law, cf. AAS, LXXVI, 1984, 746-747) saidthat this did not need to be dealt with by the Tribunal but could be verified in the prenuptial investigation.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Well in 1984, *an *authentic interpretation of canon 1686 (Pontifical Commission … of the Code of Canon Law, cf. AAS, LXXVI, 1984, 746-747) saidthat this did not need to be dealt with by the Tribunal but could be verified in the prenuptial investigation.

I cannot read that myself because I do not have any Latin. Going off a standard North American commentary on the Canon Law (can quote if wanted) states that defects of canonical form still must go before a tribunal but be dealt with by a simplified documentary process. It says that the appeal tribunal must still confirm the original decision. The commentary states that the Holy See was considering an instruction on a simplified process but that it hasn’t issued one yet.

 

[FrDavid96]

Well in 1984, *an *authentic interpretation of canon 1686 (Pontifical Commission … of the Code of Canon Law, cf. AAS, LXXVI, 1984, 746-747) saidthat this did not need to be dealt with by the Tribunal but could be verified in the prenuptial investigation.

And did the Pontifical Commission say that such a marriage is “not presumed valid.”?

Because that’s the statement you keep trying to defend.

Not quite. The civil marriage of a Catholic without a dispensation is not presumed valid.

No marriage is “not presumed valid.” Every marriage is presumed to be valid until the invalidity is proved.

The question you referenced is about the free state of someone to marry after contracting a civil marriage. It does not say that a civil marriage is presumed invalid. The civil marriage must still be investigated.

Can. 1686 After receiving a petition proposed according to the norm of can. 1677, the judicial vicar or a judge designated by him can declare the nullity of a marriage by sentence if a document subject to no contradiction or exception clearly establishes the existence of a diriment impediment or a defect of legitimate form, provided that it is equally certain that no dispensation was given, or establishes the lack of a valid mandate of a proxy. In these cases, the formalities of the ordinary process are omitted except for the citation of the parties and the intervention of the defender of the bond.

Can. 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.

Can. 1067 The conference of bishops is to establish norms about the examination of spouses and about the marriage banns or other opportune means to accomplish the investigations necessary before marriage. After these norms have been diligently observed, the pastor can proceed to assist at the marriage.

1066 and 1067 do not say that certain marriages are “presumed invalid” it says that they have to be investigated (they say that any proposed marriage has to be investigated).

You are trying to say that because the investigation into that marriage is a rather easy one to conduct (usually), that means it is presumed invalid. The two are not the same thing.

You keep trying to defend this post.

Not quite. The civil marriage of a Catholic without a dispensation is not presumed valid.

It cannot be defended.

 

[Phemie]

And did the Pontifical Commission say that such a marriage is “not presumed valid.”?
Because that’s the statement you keep trying to defend.

No marriage is “not presumed valid.” Every marriage is presumed to be valid until the invalidity is proved.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217348&highlight=presumption+of+validity%3B+Roman+Rota
Read cameron_lansing’s post #18

 

[FrDavid96]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217348&highlight=presumption+of+validity%3B+Roman+Rota
Read cameron_lansing’s post #18

Nice try.

That deals with situations where it has already been proven “by an administrative process” (to quote the post) that there is nothing else which might make the marriage a valid one.

Cameron was explaining the difference between a formal declaration of nullity and an administrative act.

Before that administrative act (an investigation into the marriage) the marriage is not presumed to be invalid. It is presumed that the marriage is valid until the investigation shows otherwise. No matter how brief it might be, the investigation comes first.

As I have said before, that investigation may be a very short process, but until it happens, no one can presume that a marriage is invalid.

 

[Phemie]

Nice try.

That deals with situations where it has already been proven “by an administrative process” (to quote the post) that there is nothing else which might make the marriage a valid one.

Cameron was explaining the difference between a formal declaration of nullity and an administrative act.

Before that administrative act (an investigation into the marriage) the marriage is not presumed to be invalid. It is presumed that the marriage is valid until the investigation shows otherwise. No matter how brief it might be, the investigation comes first.

As I have said before, that investigation may be a very short process, but until it happens, no one can presume that a marriage is invalid.

In that case no Catholic can be denied Communion for being in an invalid marriage unless the marriage has been investigated. So when my daughter comes home for Christmas I can just tell her 'No problem dear, you can go to Communion even if you were married outside, by a non-denominational minister, without a dispensation. The Church hasn’t investigated your marriage so go for it."

 

[josephback]

See canon 1062, which covers engagement.

No it does not “count in spirit” as a marriage of any type.

Oh, ok. I heard once that in Jewish religion and culture a bill of divorce is required for broken engagements. Of course Christianity is not based on Jewish culture but came out of it…so if I ever find another woman I love and have the maturity needed I can marry. Sounds good. Once I obtain maturity though I might become a priest…undecided.

 

[FrDavid96]

Oh, ok. I heard once that in Jewish religion and culture a bill of divorce is required for broken engagements. Of course Christianity is not based on Jewish culture but came out of it…so if I ever find another woman I love and have the maturity needed I can marry. Sounds good. Once I obtain maturity though I might become a priest…undecided.

Yes, but not under current canon law. The fact that you were engaged before does not prevent you from marrying in the future. Set your mind at ease about that.

 

[Irishgal49]

Not quite. The civil marriage of a Catholic without a dispensation is not presumed valid.

You are correct. I am a Catholic who was fallen away and married outside the church. We are separated and I came back and my marriage is not recognized at all in the church. I have to submit a form but it’s considered null for failure to follow proper form.
I was told by the priest that I am not considered married in the Catholic Church and if I was living with him I could not take communion or go to reconciliation.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

You are correct. I am a Catholic who was fallen away and married outside the church. We are separated and I came back and my marriage is not recognized at all in the church. I have to submit a form but it’s considered null for failure to follow proper form.
I was told by the priest that I am not considered married in the Catholic Church and if I was living with him I could not take communion or go to reconciliation.

What is the form for?

 

[jollybird]

The Church herself tells the Catholics married outside the Church without a dispensation that they are in an invalid marriage, therefore there is no doubt about the validity, it doesn’t exist.

Phemie and 1ke,

I believe you are correct and my recent experience with being granted a radical sanation by the Vatican may help prove your point. I will try to make it direct.

1. My husband and I are both baptized Catholics and because of this, the local Archbishop was not able to help me with a sanation but had to send it on to the Vatican. Apparently a Bishop cannot dispense with Canonical Form IF both parties are Catholics.
2. We were married outside the church - by law only.
3. I was told IF I con-validated, my marriage anniversary would be the date the vows were said before the priest - NOT the date we married 20+ years ago. My Baptismal Certificate would ONLY reflect the con-validated date as the previous marriage “did not exist.” My marriage, although presumed valid in civil/common-law, was considered INVALID in the church until the vows were said in the Church. I did NOT need to seek a Decree of Nullity or any other permission to convalidate.
4. IF I received a radical sanation, the invalid marriage would be considered valid retroactively to the original date of civil/common-law marriage. Radical Sanation means “healing at the root.”
5. Because it was NOT valid in the Church, the burden was upon ME to prove that I entered into a legally binding union that the church could find reason to CONSIDER it valid. I could provide a license or other proof to the Tribunal and satisfy them that we were both free to enter into a marriage 20+ years ago.
6. But according to the Tribunal, if my husband and I were to seek and receive a civil divorce, we were both completely free to marry others in the church without the former civil/common-law marriage being declared null. It never existed within the church. I was told to be sure that I wanted the Radical Sanation because once I received it, I was then in a valid marriage in the Catholic Church which would require a Tribunal to declare it null if I were to divorce and wanted to marry someone else in the future.

My understanding is that the Canon referred to which grants all marriages the presumption of law (can’t remember exact words), is for all Non-Catholics wishing to enter into a marriage with a Catholic. All of those marriages are considered valid and must be declared null by the Tribunal.

I am going to consider my experiences to be correct within Canon Law since it was granted by Rome.

 

[Warrior1979]

1ke,

Will you please, please, read the canon:

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

You keep repeating this. You cannot possibly be more wrong.

Read the canon. I’m begging you. Please read the canon.

Every marriage enjoys the favor of the law until otherwise proven.

I have to admit…I’m utterly confused. It is my understanding that a Catholic marrying civilly hasn’t married at all in the eyes of the Church. I don’t see how Canon 1060 applies since there is no marriage that can possess the favor of law in the first place.

If indeed Canon 1060 applies, it just confuses the matter. For example, if this civil marriage of a Catholic, without the appropriate dispensation, enjoys the favor of law, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Church to use phrases such as “attempted marriage,” “putative marriage,” etc. Doing so would clearly demonstrate a bias against this Canon.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have to admit…I’m utterly confused. It is my understanding that a Catholic marrying civilly hasn’t married at all in the eyes of the Church. I don’t see how Canon 1060 applies since there is no marriage that can possess the favor of law in the first place.

If indeed Canon 1060 applies, it just confuses the matter. For example, if this civil marriage of a Catholic, without the appropriate dispensation, enjoys the favor of law, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Church to use phrases such as “attempted marriage,” “putative marriage,” etc. Doing so would clearly demonstrate a bias against this Canon.

What I am saying, what I have been saying all along, and over-and-over-again is that we do not PRESUME a marriage to be invalid.

Have you ever seen the various forms applying for a declaration of nullity? The forms themselves DO in fact say “marriage” when asking the questions. They do not say “describe your presumed to be invalid attempt at marriage.”

The Church is very careful not to use phrases like “invalid attempt at marriage” until after it’s been proven that the marriage is invalid.

A marriage is always presumed to be a valid one, UNTIL proven otherwise. What you’re doing (in your first paragraph above) is first proving the marriage invalid, then claiming that canon 1060 doesn’t apply to an invalid marriage. Of course it won’t, because you’ve already described an invalid attempt.

A couple says “we are married”
First we have a presumption that the marriage is valid (c. 1060 applies at this point)
Then we have proof that the marriage is invalid (c. 1060 no longer applies after this)
Then AFTER the proof, that marriage is said to be invalid

The proof necessary that a marriage is an invalid-attempt can sometimes be a rather easy standard to meet. That’s certainly true.

But the Church does not presume that it is invalid before it’s been proven.

 

[FrDavid96]

Phemie and 1ke,

I believe you are correct and my recent experience with being granted a radical sanation by the Vatican may help prove your point. I will try to make it direct.

1. My husband and I are both baptized Catholics and because of this, the local Archbishop was not able to help me with a sanation but had to send it on to the Vatican. Apparently a Bishop cannot dispense with Canonical Form IF both parties are Catholics.
2. We were married outside the church - by law only.
3. I was told IF I con-validated, my marriage anniversary would be the date the vows were said before the priest - NOT the date we married 20+ years ago. My Baptismal Certificate would ONLY reflect the con-validated date as the previous marriage “did not exist.” My marriage, although presumed valid in civil/common-law, was considered INVALID in the church until the vows were said in the Church. I did NOT need to seek a Decree of Nullity or any other permission to convalidate.
4. IF I received a radical sanation, the invalid marriage would be considered valid retroactively to the original date of civil/common-law marriage. Radical Sanation means “healing at the root.”
5. Because it was NOT valid in the Church, the burden was upon ME to prove that I entered into a legally binding union that the church could find reason to CONSIDER it valid. I could provide a license or other proof to the Tribunal and satisfy them that we were both free to enter into a marriage 20+ years ago.
6. But according to the Tribunal, if my husband and I were to seek and receive a civil divorce, we were both completely free to marry others in the church without the former civil/common-law marriage being declared null. It never existed within the church. I was told to be sure that I wanted the Radical Sanation because once I received it, I was then in a valid marriage in the Catholic Church which would require a Tribunal to declare it null if I were to divorce and wanted to marry someone else in the future.

My understanding is that the Canon referred to which grants all marriages the presumption of law (can’t remember exact words), is for all Non-Catholics wishing to enter into a marriage with a Catholic. All of those marriages are considered valid and must be declared null by the Tribunal.

I am going to consider my experiences to be correct within Canon Law since it was granted by Rome.

In what you’re describing above, that marriage was already proven to be an invalid one before step #1.

One cannot use an example of a marriage that has already been proven invalid to dispute c. 1060 because 1060 doesn’t say that the marriage is always presumed valid (period) it says presumed valid UNTIL otherwise proven.

 

[dans0622]

in the case of a Catholic who marries civilly without dispensation there is no “case of doubt” and the marriage does not “enjoy the favor of the law.” It is, on its face, invalid.

Stating it even more accurately, from the canonical perspective, such a “marriage” is non-existent. There is no presumption of validity for that which doesn’t even exist. In practice, this distinction can be illustrated in the following example:

“John” comes to the tribunal and says “I was married to Mary but she was previously married to Steve. I ask you to declare my marriage to Mary invalid on the basis of her prior bond.”

Tribunal Secretary: “Are any of you Catholic?”

John “Steve was baptized Catholic as a baby. Mary and I are not Catholic.”

Tribunal Secretary: “Was the marriage of Mary and Steve in the Church or before a civil official?”

John “Before a civil official.”

Tribunal Secretary: “In that case, there is no prior bond. We consider Mary to have been free to marry you. Your marriage to Mary will be examined as a formal case, not as a documentary, prior bond case.”

John: “Oh. Bummer.”

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Stating it even more accurately, from the canonical perspective, such a “marriage” is non-existent. There is no presumption of validity for that which doesn’t even exist. In practice, this distinction can be illustrated in the following example:

“John” comes to the tribunal and says “I was married to Mary but she was previously married to Steve. I ask you to declare my marriage to Mary invalid on the basis of her prior bond.”

Tribunal Secretary: “Are any of you Catholic?”

John “Steve was baptized Catholic as a baby. Mary and I are not Catholic.”

Tribunal Secretary: “Was the marriage of Mary and Steve in the Church or before a civil official?”

John “Before a civil official.”

Tribunal Secretary: “In that case, there is no prior bond. We consider Mary to have been free to marry you. Your marriage to Mary will be examined as a formal case, not as a documentary, prior bond case.”

John: “Oh. Bummer.”

Dan

You’re doing the same thing other posters have done.

You are starting by first proving that the marriage is invalid, then saying that it is not presumed to be valid.

Of course it is no longer presumed valid, because it’s been proven otherwise. And even that is assuming that the “tribunal secretary” even has the authority to make that determination. That might or might not be true.

Let’s continue the conversation, shall we?

Secretary: “What were the circumstances of that marriage between Mary and Steve?”

John: “They lived in a remote village in Alaska in 1984. The priest could only come once a year in July. They got engaged in December and married in February.”

Secretary: “Did they contact the diocese?”

John: “Couldn’t do it. They couldn’t travel in the winter and they didn’t have telephone service at the time, and we didn’t have cell phones back in '84”

Now, what say you about their situation? Is it still presumed to be invalid?

I’ll give you a hint. Read canon 1116.

 

[jollybird]

In what you’re describing above, that marriage was already proven to be an invalid one before step #1.

One cannot use an example of a marriage that has already been proven invalid to dispute c. 1060 because 1060 doesn’t say that the marriage is always presumed valid (period) it says presumed valid UNTIL otherwise proven.

Fr. David,

How? What did I say in my statement (below) which proved it was invalid BEFORE #1. How is it in any way different than any other situation where two Catholics married outside the church are in an invalid marriage? The marriage was never existed in the eyes of the church.

The Radical Sanation being granted PROVED IT WAS VALID but needed to be recognized and sacramental.

Unless I have misunderstood this conversation, that is what we have been saying all along but now you are saying the Canon does not apply. The point is it does NOT apply to all situations.

1. My husband and I are both baptized Catholics and because of this, the local Archbishop was not able to help me with a sanation but had to send it on to the Vatican. Apparently a Bishop cannot dispense with Canonical Form IF both parties are Catholics.

 

[jollybird]

Every marriage “enjoys the favor of the law” even if it is only a civil marriage. It is indeed presumed valid until the tribunal decides otherwise. Yes, a declaration of nullity is necessary.

Edit: “the civil marriage of a Catholic” however isn’t the topic of the OP it was in reference to another post

Fr. David,

With respect, when you started out you were saying that a declaration of nullity is necessary but now you are saying that the “proof” can be essentially understood between people in a conversation. They are quite different in administrative procedure.

With regards to Canon 1116 and the couple in Alaska who could not have a priest officiate, the difference would be that the couple intended to enter into a CATHOLIC marriage whereas those who make no attempt or reject the church would be invalid.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David,

How? What did I say in my statement (below) which proved it was invalid BEFORE #1. How is it in any way different than any other situation where two Catholics married outside the church are in an invalid marriage? The marriage was never existed in the eyes of the church.

The Radical Sanation being granted PROVED IT WAS VALID but needed to be recognized and sacramental.

Unless I have misunderstood this conversation, that is what we have been saying all along but now you are saying the Canon does not apply. The point is it does NOT apply to all situations.

1. My husband and I are both baptized Catholics and because of this, the local Archbishop was not able to help me with a sanation but had to send it on to the Vatican. Apparently a Bishop cannot dispense with Canonical Form IF both parties are Catholics.

When you requested the sanation, someone at the diocese (someone with some kind of legitimate authority) examined your case and determined that the marriage was an invalid attempt. Therefore, as of the time you’re discussing, the marriage had already been proven invalid. The canon had been satisfied. The marriage was no longer presumed valid because it had been proven invalid.