Edited: Marriage question: Annulment necessary for civil unions?

[dans0622]

Dan,

How can we know that something “legally does not exist” before knowing all the facts?

Hi Father,

With no facts, or insufficient facts, we can know and/or presume nothing. I would say that at the moment you have enough information to state that c. 1060’s presumption of validity has arisen, that’s the moment I know the “marriage” doesn’t exist.

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Hi Father,

With no facts, or insufficient facts, we can know and/or presume nothing. I would say that at the moment you have enough information to state that c. 1060’s presumption of validity has arisen, that’s the moment I know the “marriage” doesn’t exist.

Dan

Dan,

What I have been saying all along is what you just posted here.

“With no facts, or insufficient facts, we can know and/or presume nothing.”

What I keep saying is that the Church does not presume that a marriage is invalid.
Because to “presume” means that one is in exactly the situation you just described:
“no facts, or insufficient facts.”

Your second sentence:
“I would say that at the moment you have enough information to state that c. 1060’s presumption of validity has arisen, that’s the moment I know the “marriage” doesn’t exist.”

Again, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. I’ve never disputed the fact that once the situation is a proven fact, we can indeed say that no marriage ever existed. What I am saying is that we have to wait until we can actually say “one has enough information to state…the marriage doesn’t exist” and we have to know that the information is indeed accurate.

What I keep trying to express here is that before we have “enough information” we cannot presume that a marriage was an invalid-attempt, precisely because we don’t have enough information.

If there is any possibility that a marriage might indeed exist, then we cannot presume that it doesn’t. After all, where would we be if we started telling people that their marriages are “presumed to be invalid” but then later have to go back and say “well, we presumed wrongly, it turns out your marriage was actually a valid one. No harm no foul, right?”

Once we reach the point where we are truly able to determine if a marriage exists or not, we are no longer making a presumption. Now, we’re dealing with a fact.

I’m trying to illustrate the difference between a presumption on the one hand (which by it’s very definition means that one does not have all the facts, or might possess the facts but not yet arrive at a logical conclusion) and on the other hand a proven fact.

The one thing that I would add to the above is to say that someone who does not have the authority of the Church to actually declare an attempt at marriage to be null and void should not be doing so. I think someone in your position would appreciate that. No?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

A Catholic who “marries” without any regard for canonical form is not in a presumptively valid marriage (cf. c. 124.2, c. 1060). Such a person is not in a presumptively invalid marriage either. Such a person is in a civil union–a relationship that does not even have the semblance of marriage in canon law. It is non-existent. There are no legal presumptions involved with something that, legally, does not exist.

A dispensation from canonical form can be attained. Thus, until the matter is investigated the public exchange of vows essentially is presumed to be valid.

 

[josephback]

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.

Ok. I have since learned via Facebook that the woman in question is only separated though I had heard she was getting a divorce. It’s probably best to pray for the marriage she’s still in. Their names are Kimi and Kevin

 

[quiet52]

*Married couple to RCIA leader: * We are both baptized Catholics who received First Communion at age 7, but we have not been active in the faith since then. We want to prepare for Confirmation.

*RCIA leader (while completing the RCIA registration form): * Have either of you ever been married to anyone else?

*Couple: * No.

RCIA leader: Where were you married?

Couple: We married five years ago in the God’s Rainbow Church across town.

*RCIA leader: * Oh - why did you marry in that church?

*One spouse: * Because my uncle is a preacher there, and it’s a pretty church.

RCIA leader: Did you obtain a dispensation, or permission, from the diocese, through a Catholic pastor, to be married outside of the Catholic Church?

*Couple: * No, were we supposed to?

Dear Father David,

In no way is an RCIA leader any kind of juridical agent for the Church. Yet, that leader is obligated to tell that couple that in the eyes of the Church, they are not validly married. This is what RCIA leaders are trained to do. The couple is informed that they can cannot yet participate in the sacraments of Reconciliation or Eucharist, let alone be confirmed, until their marriage is convalidated in the Church. They’re told they need to see the pastor as soon as possible to discuss this further and to begin their marriage preparation. There is no need for any diocesan Tribunal involvement, of course, because there are no prior marriages.

Their marriage is objectively held as an invalid one in the eyes of the Church because the Catholic couple broke the rules to begin with, and entered into a non-canonical marriage which the Church does not recognize. Canon law requires that a priest or deacon and at least two witnesses be present for validity to exist (see canons 1108-1116).

IF either partner had been previously married, and for the sake of simplicity in this example, that first wedding also took place outside of the Church, THEN the spouse with the prior marriage would submit a petition for a defect of form so that the Church would have evidence prior to declaring that the first marriage is found to be invalid due to defect of canonical form… The reason isn’t so much that the Church needs to declare the first marriage as an invalid one; the apparent invalidity has already been determined by the pastor forwarding the petition to the diocesan Tribunal or some other diocesan entity (it is my understanding that this is the norm in the U.S.). To protect the first marriage, the Church needs to ensure that the first spouse was indeed Catholic, and that a proper dispensation from canonical form wasn’t granted for the wedding to take place outside of a Catholic church.

CHAPTER V: THE FORM OF THE CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE

Canon 1108.1 Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists, in accordance however with the rules set out in the following canons, and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112.1, 1116 and 1127.2-3.

This is from a form filled out by the Pastor, entitled “Prenuptial Questionnaire, includnig convalidations (c. 1067)”

������ If you are presently in a non-Catholic union and seeking to be married in the Catholic Church (convalidation), is your consent to this convalidation an act of the will by which you intend to enter into a valid Catholic marriage? (c. 1157)……….…������ Yes ������ No*
• A Catholic who exchanges marital vows in any non-Catholic ceremony without a dispensation from canonical form is not married validly in the eyes of the Catholic Church and is not able to receive the Sacraments licitly.
• The Church is not ‘blessing’ this union. A valid marriage begins with the Catholic marriage ceremony (convalidation).

 

[FrDavid96]

*Married couple to RCIA leader: * We are both baptized Catholics who received First Communion at age 7, but we have not been active in the faith since then. We want to prepare for Confirmation.

*RCIA leader (while completing the RCIA registration form): * Have either of you ever been married to anyone else?

*Couple: * No.

RCIA leader: Where were you married?

Couple: We married five years ago in the God’s Rainbow Church across town.

*RCIA leader: * Oh - why did you marry in that church?

*One spouse: * Because my uncle is a preacher there, and it’s a pretty church.

RCIA leader: Did you obtain a dispensation, or permission, from the diocese, through a Catholic pastor, to be married outside of the Catholic Church?

*Couple: * No, were we supposed to?

Dear Father David,

In no way is an RCIA leader any kind of juridical agent for the Church. Yet, that leader is obligated to tell that couple that in the eyes of the Church, they are not validly married. This is what RCIA leaders are trained to do. The couple is informed that they can cannot yet participate in the sacraments of Reconciliation or Eucharist, let alone be confirmed, until their marriage is convalidated in the Church. They’re told they need to see the pastor as soon as possible to discuss this further and to begin their marriage preparation. There is no need for any diocesan Tribunal involvement, of course, because there are no prior marriages.

Their marriage is objectively held as an invalid one in the eyes of the Church because the Catholic couple broke the rules to begin with, and entered into a non-canonical marriage which the Church does not recognize. Canon law requires that a priest or deacon and at least two witnesses be present for validity to exist (see canons 1108-1116).

IF either partner had been previously married, and for the sake of simplicity in this example, that first wedding also took place outside of the Church, THEN the spouse with the prior marriage would submit a petition for a defect of form so that the Church would have evidence prior to declaring that the first marriage is found to be invalid due to defect of canonical form… The reason isn’t so much that the Church needs to declare the first marriage as an invalid one; the apparent invalidity has already been determined by the pastor forwarding the petition to the diocesan Tribunal or some other diocesan entity (it is my understanding that this is the norm in the U.S.). To protect the first marriage, the Church needs to ensure that the first spouse was indeed Catholic, and that a proper dispensation from canonical form wasn’t granted for the wedding to take place outside of a Catholic church.

This is from a form filled out by the Pastor, entitled “Prenuptial Questionnaire, includnig convalidations (c. 1067)”

You are obviously missing the distinction I keep making between making a presumption and dealing with an established fact.

 

[dans0622]

Dan,

What I have been saying all along is what you just posted here.

“With no facts, or insufficient facts, we can know and/or presume nothing.”

What I keep saying is that the Church does not presume that a marriage is invalid.
Because to “presume” means that one is in exactly the situation you just described:
“no facts, or insufficient facts.”
…

The one thing that I would add to the above is to say that someone who does not have the authority of the Church to actually declare an attempt at marriage to be null and void should not be doing so. I think someone in your position would appreciate that. No?

Hello Father,

If we agree on something, great. Even a presumption is impossible with no/insufficient facts. Anyway, it seems to me that the former practice (in the USA, at least) of declaring two Catholics who “marry” before a merely civil official to be automatically excommunicated would tend to suggest that the Church indeed has “presumed a marriage to be invalid.” That penalty is no longer in force but the reality of the “marital situation” of such a couple has not changed.

As a defender of the bond, I have nothing to do with lack of form cases…in my official capacity, that is. There’s nothing for me to do there.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

A dispensation from canonical form can be attained. Thus, until the matter is investigated the public exchange of vows essentially is presumed to be valid.

Hello,

I can only repeat that, in practice and in reality, no such presumption exists. If it did, a judicial process would be required to overturn it. Consent that is “legitimately manifested” makes marriage–a presumptively valid one, that is (cf. c. 1057.1). Catholics expressing their consent with no regard for canonical form have not legitimately manifested their consent.

Dan

 

[jollybird]

To ask another way for clarification.

A Catholic couple wants to be married in their parish. The priest asks the appropriate questions, one of them being, “have you ever been married before?” The couple answers “no” because they have learned that although they stood before the JOP, there marriage was not valid in the church. Have they done anything wrong? Can they be married in the church after having answered the question in that way?

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello Father,

If we agree on something, great. Even a presumption is impossible with no/insufficient facts. Anyway, it seems to me that the former practice (in the USA, at least) of declaring two Catholics who “marry” before a merely civil official to be automatically excommunicated would tend to suggest that the Church indeed has “presumed a marriage to be invalid.” That penalty is no longer in force but the reality of the “marital situation” of such a couple has not changed.

As a defender of the bond, I have nothing to do with lack of form cases…in my official capacity, that is. There’s nothing for me to do there.

Dan

Dan,
What I take issue with is the statement “presumed to be invalid.” Again, I’ll admit that the burden of proof is a rather simple one to meet in the case of 2 Catholics in a civil-only marriage, but given that such a marriage is at least possibly valid and licit (a marriage before witnesses alone) how can we say that such a marriage is “presumed” invalid? Once the facts are proven (legitimately proven) then by all means we can call it invalid.

Again, the words of Pope Paul VI from 1971

X. When there is proof from a certain and authentic document, not subject to any contradiction or exception, that a diriment impediment exists, and when it is also equally certain and clear that no dispensation from these impediments has been given, in these cases the formalities laid down in law can be omitted and the Ordinary, after the parties have been summoned and the Defender of the Bond has intervened, can declare the marriage null.

I cannot reconcile the word “presume” with what I read above. The Pope wasn’t writing about making a presumption, he was writing about proving the facts.

That’s why I take such an issue here—because I’m trying to make the point that when it comes to “judging” whether or not 2 people are actually married, it’s not a matter of making presumptions, it’s a matter of dealing with proven hard facts.

And I must point-out to other readers who might not be aware that what I quote above was an application of the old 1917 Code of Canon law, not the current Code.

 

[objectiv1]

Our Lady did predict that Chaos will reign during these times.

 

[FrDavid96]

To ask another way for clarification.

A Catholic couple wants to be married in their parish. The priest asks the appropriate questions, one of them being, “have you ever been married before?” The couple answers “no” because they have learned that although they stood before the JOP, there marriage was not valid in the church. Have they done anything wrong? Can they be married in the church after having answered the question in that way?

No, because they’ve given an inaccurate answer. If they simply say “no” they’re not being honest with the priest. Keep reading…

That doesn’t mean they “can’t get married” it just means that they need to give an accurate answer and proceed from there.

All the forms I’ve ever seen ask it this way “have you ever married or attempted marriage?” If the answer is “yes” then the priest must proceed to examine the facts of the situation.

And that’s exactly the point I keep trying to make here: that the priest must examine the previous (attempt at) marriage. He cannot simply “presume” the facts. He has to be certain of the facts.

 

[tmabmer]

First and foremost lets get one thing straight. The Catholic church recognizes all mariages. Even after marriage in a Catholic ceremony and through divorce and a granted annulment through a Tribunal. The Church still recognizes the marriage but declares it not sacemental. An annulment through the Tribunal looks at the sacament you receive through the marriage and tries to determine if their are grounds (such as one party not wanting to have children) to declare the marriage null. The church still says you were married, it just does not say it was a sacamental marriage. As such, any children born to this marriage will not be considered bastard children. It is true, you will need to seek guidance to find out if you are free to marry in the Church, but you will NOT need to seek an annulment due to the fact the only way to receive the sacament of marriage is to be married in the Church with an officiant of the church in a SACRAMENTAL ceremony. Annulments are all about the SACRAMENT of marriage and not the marriage itself.

 

[Phemie]

First and foremost lets get one thing straight. The Catholic church recognizes all mariages. Even after marriage in a Catholic ceremony and through divorce and a granted annulment through a Tribunal. The Church still recognizes the marriage but declares it not sacemental. An annulment through the Tribunal looks at the sacament you receive through the marriage and tries to determine if their are grounds (such as one party not wanting to have children) to declare the marriage null. The church still says you were married, it just does not say it was a sacamental marriage. As such, any children born to this marriage will not be considered bastard children. It is true, you will need to seek guidance to find out if you are free to marry in the Church, but you will NOT need to seek an annulment due to the fact the only way to receive the sacament of marriage is to be married in the Church with an officiant of the church in a SACRAMENTAL ceremony. Annulments are all about the SACRAMENT of marriage and not the marriage itself.

Sorry, you have that completely wrong.

A decree of nullity declares that no **valid **marriage ever happened. A valid marriage is not necessarily sacramental. Two Jews may never be granted an ‘annulment’ because they are in a perfectly valid marriage but it’ll never be a sacramental marriage unless they both convert and are baptized.

A Catholic and a Jew or a member of the Salvation Army may be in a valid marriage but it’s not a sacramental marriage because only 2 baptized people can be in a sacramental marriage.

The children who were the product of a putative marriage (one that was presumed valid but was subsequently declared null) are legitimate because the marriage was believed valid.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

First and foremost lets get one thing straight. The Catholic church recognizes all mariages. Even after marriage in a Catholic ceremony and through divorce and a granted annulment through a Tribunal. The Church still recognizes the marriage but declares it not sacemental. An annulment through the Tribunal looks at the sacament you receive through the marriage and tries to determine if their are grounds (such as one party not wanting to have children) to declare the marriage null. The church still says you were married, it just does not say it was a sacamental marriage. As such, any children born to this marriage will not be considered bastard children. It is true, you will need to seek guidance to find out if you are free to marry in the Church, but you will NOT need to seek an annulment due to the fact the only way to receive the sacament of marriage is to be married in the Church with an officiant of the church in a SACRAMENTAL ceremony. Annulments are all about the SACRAMENT of marriage and not the marriage itself.

No, that’s saying something that can never be: the annulment says it is not a sacrament but it is still a marriage! That cannot happen.

A marriage is valid if it meets all the requirements the Church says are required for marriage. Two non-Christians, e.g. two Hindus can be validly married but because they’re not baptised it is not sacramental. A marriage is only a sacrament if both spouses are validly baptised. If a marriage is annulled the annulment says this marriage never happened - there was no marriage. If there was no marriage the couple never received the sacrament of marriage. The children of an annulled marriage are not “bastards”; they remain legitimate.

 

[agnella]

Hi all,

I am reading this post because I am in a similar situation: baptised Catholic, never married, my fiance is Hindu, and was previously civilly married to another Hindu person. Before I trylu engage with him into a serious relationship I was not aware that their marriage would be considered marriedin the eyes of the Catholic church, since my fiance had never sword in front of God. We got civilly married few months ago and we started to prepare for a religous ceremony. And there we encountered an obvious for everybody here a problem. I was of course shoced to hear that, and my fiance (I call him like this because I still don’t have my sacramet which I wait for) couldn’t believe it becasue not only did he get his divorce papers but also his marriage took place 5 years ago, he NEVER consummated that marriage, they have never lived together becasue after that fatal ‘paper-signing’ (which was moreover done at home, not an office, in presence of 2 witnesess only) each of them returned to family home becasue they were planning their religious ceremony which eventually never took place because his ex-wife left the country. They never came togehter since then and their divorce was an obvious fact for the judge because that marriage, even in the name of the Law, had never existed. In addition to that one more cause for their split was the pressure of ex-wife parents. He would say today that this woman was not able to get into marriage with anyone.
My fiance didn’t even go to the court becasue he left the country as well and couldn’t do this. His ex-wife when she returned started the legal proceeding and it straightforward.

Now, our priest gave us 2 solutions: given that our problem is more administrative, as he said, we either begin the process for nullity of my fiance’s previous marriage or ask the pope for the privilege ‘For faith’. And this is what we were advised to do.
I thought that the person askong for this privilege needs to become Catholic but I was explained that there are 2 possibilites, either he wants to baptise or he wants to marry a practising Catholic as you can see here:

*Being baptized or received into the Catholic faith is not a requirement for these cases. For instance, a Petitioner and former spouse may both have been from backgrounds other than Catholic, and the Petitioner may have no interest in joining the Catholic Church, but the case may be petitioned and granted in favor of the faith of his/her prospective Catholic spouse.

And here:
This is done to “favor” someone’s faith, either the faith of a person who wishes to receive baptism and enter the Catholic Church, or the fuller practice of the faith of a Catholic who wishes to marry in the Catholic Church or to convalidate a current union in the Church.*

the priest in the Tribunal who was interviewing us andWe are now waiting for the answer, it has been 5 months already and still nothing…it’s devastating for me because for my fiance he is already validly married to me and I am his only wife that he truly loves, wants to have children with etc (which was not the case with his previous wife) and for my off course he is as well the first serious man.

 

[agnella]

I am sorry, my Pc had a problem and my post was published incompleted.

I will end the last phrase:
the priest in the Tribunal who was interviewing us, once he knew that the marriage of my fiancee was not consummated he said that the case should be straighforward. Well we’ll see for that but the fact is that it’s not easy for me to remain in such an unsure situationm especially when for my husband we are already a family, we are married, we should have children now etc and he can’t understand why I am so concerned about this sacrament thing, which is obvious for each Catholic. He tries to understand, of course, but more he tries more he is *disgusted *with the Institution of the Catholic Church. He can’t understand why there is so much trouble about someone who is not Catholic and was never married in any religious ceremony of any religion and why it has to take so much time to prove something that is obvious for God. Of ourse, we all as Catholics can understand this concern but we can’t neither say that he is rejecting when I try to explain why I can’t have children now etc. He can’t reject if he had never accepted (meaning = if he has never baptised).

And now, coming back to the Communion Problem you can understand my concerns about is, especially that it’s so much important to me. I am confessing quite regularily and each priest (recentely it’s the same one since he knows very well me and my situation) that I confessed was telling me that God understand my very particular situation and seeing that all that is happening is unintended, that I regret so much not having checked everything better than I did ( if I have known alla this stuff before I would have not gone further in the relationship…) that since the beginning I am doing my best to solve the issuem I am praying and working on myself a lot and few months ago I was even ready to break up just because my love for God…they all told me and keep on telling me to come to the Communion and to accept the Cross that Christ gave me…which I do but only after confession.

When we recevied the agreement from the Holy Father we can proceed as normal which means either convalidate our Civil Mariage based on Dispensation from Cult and from Canonic Form, or which is more probable, get married in Catholic church based on Dispensation of Cult.

But If let’s say tomorrow we are not together and I want to get married in church with a Catholic, my marriage is not valid because of a lack of form.

 

[objectiv1]

As predicted by our Lady “chaos will reign”.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I am sorry, my Pc had a problem and my post was published incompleted.

I will end the last phrase:
the priest in the Tribunal who was interviewing us, once he knew that the marriage of my fiancee was not consummated he said that the case should be straighforward. Well we’ll see for that but the fact is that it’s not easy for me to remain in such an unsure situationm especially when for my husband we are already a family, we are married, we should have children now etc and he can’t understand why I am so concerned about this sacrament thing, which is obvious for each Catholic. He tries to understand, of course, but more he tries more he is *disgusted *with the Institution of the Catholic Church. He can’t understand why there is so much trouble about someone who is not Catholic and was never married in any religious ceremony of any religion and why it has to take so much time to prove something that is obvious for God. Of ourse, we all as Catholics can understand this concern but we can’t neither say that he is rejecting when I try to explain why I can’t have children now etc. He can’t reject if he had never accepted (meaning = if he has never baptised).

And now, coming back to the Communion Problem you can understand my concerns about is, especially that it’s so much important to me. I am confessing quite regularily and each priest (recentely it’s the same one since he knows very well me and my situation) that I confessed was telling me that God understand my very particular situation and seeing that all that is happening is unintended, that I regret so much not having checked everything better than I did ( if I have known alla this stuff before I would have not gone further in the relationship…) that since the beginning I am doing my best to solve the issuem I am praying and working on myself a lot and few months ago I was even ready to break up just because my love for God…they all told me and keep on telling me to come to the Communion and to accept the Cross that Christ gave me…which I do but only after confession.

When we recevied the agreement from the Holy Father we can proceed as normal which means either convalidate our Civil Mariage based on Dispensation from Cult and from Canonic Form, or which is more probable, get married in Catholic church based on Dispensation of Cult.

But If let’s say tomorrow we are not together and I want to get married in church with a Catholic, my marriage is not valid because of a lack of form.

OK, from what you say there are two problems here, which I will come to shortly. Because you are a Catholic you are bound by the Church’s canon laws on marriage. Your husband as a Hindu is not, for the most part, bound by Catholic canon law. However, in marrying a Catholic he is affected by the Church’s marriage laws.

Now, to your two problems. The first is, from the description you gave of your marriage, it would seem you married without canonical form. You do not say you were granted dispensation from canonical form. Therefore, your marriage is invalid. This can be quickly resolved by speaking to your parish priest.

The second problem complicates things. Your husband has been married before. It does not matter how short it was - he was married. He wasn’t free to marry you - he had the impediment of prior bond. To marry you he would require an annulment of his prior marriage. If it was not consummated it is possible it can be dissolved.

I don’t know how the Church will proceed. The obvious answer seems to be to annul your marriage due to lack of canonical form and then to deal with your husband’s prior marriage. However, the Church may want to look at the issue of you marrying while he was impeded by prior bond.

To complicate the picture more you imply that the Pope has granted a dissolution in favour of the Faith regarding your husband’s first marriage. So, it isn’t clear from your posts where you’re up to.

My advice, FWIW, go and see your priest. Tell him everyhthing. Let the priest start to sort out this situation for you.

 

[agnella]

Actually this is the first thing I did. I went to see the priest and he helped us to meet with a priest from Diocese Tribunal and after having interviewed us and our situation they decided the Privilege for Faith as the best solution for us. There is nothing more left to do apart from waiting.