Edited: Marriage question: Annulment necessary for civil unions?

[josephback]

Ok, so here’s the thing. A non-Catholic woman (who has been engaged six times but always gets cold feet) gets pregnant by a man she does not love. They contract a civil marriage but due to mutual contempt they eventually legally separate. If she later meets a man she loves, converts, and desires to marry in the Church does she need an annulment or was the civil marriage invalid from the start? This unfortunate woman is the only one I’ve ever loved. Thank you.

 

[promethius]

Ok, so here’s the thing. A non-Catholic woman (who has been engaged six times but always gets cold feet) gets pregnant by a man she does not love. They contract a civil marriage but due to mutual contempt they eventually legally separate. If she later meets a man she loves, converts, and desires to marry in the Church does she need an annulment or was the civil marriage invalid from the start? This unfortunate woman is the only one I’ve ever loved. Thank you.

All supposed marraiges require an annulment. Basically, if there is a civil marraige, or even a civil union, they will require a declaration of nullity before you can be wed. The church considers ALL marraiges valid until such time as they have been investigated by a tribunal and declared null.

 

[Phemie]

Ok, so here’s the thing. A non-Catholic woman (who has been engaged six times but always gets cold feet) gets pregnant by a man she does not love. They contract a civil marriage but due to mutual contempt they eventually legally separate. If she later meets a man she loves, converts, and desires to marry in the Church does she need an annulment or was the civil marriage invalid from the start? This unfortunate woman is the only one I’ve ever loved. Thank you.

Yes, since she’s not Catholic, and presuming the ex is also non-Catholic, her marriage is presumed valid so she would need to petition the Church for a decree of nullity (annulment). Given that she was pregnant there might be some basis for the Tribunal to decide the marriage wasn’t valid due to lack of free consent, but that will require her to do what needs to be done. She should start by contacting her priest.

 

[Phemie]

All supposed marraiges require an annulment. Basically, if there is a civil marraige, or even a civil union, they will require a declaration of nullity before you can be wed. The church considers ALL marraiges valid until such time as they have been investigated by a tribunal and declared null.

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

 

[YoungTradCath]

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

Yeah… I was gonna be like whhaaaaattttt??? Because I always thought that non-Catholic, civil-only marriages were invalid.

Anyways, to the OP, no, a declaration of nullity would NOT be required, because they were never married in a religious institution, and therefore the Church does not recognize that marriage as valid.

 

[promethius]

Yeah… I was gonna be like whhaaaaattttt??? Because I always thought that non-Catholic, civil-only marriages were invalid.

Incorrect. They may not be SACRAMENTAL, but they can still be valid.

Anyways, to the OP, no, a declaration of nullity would NOT be required, because they were never married in a religious institution, and therefore the Church does not recognize that marriage as valid.

Incorrect. There is a canon lawyer specializing in marraige tribunals who haunts these forums occasionally. I’ll see if I can track him down to clarify for you both.

I’ll reiterate in the meantime: while we can be certain that a Catholic marrying in a non-catholic ceremony is MOST LIKELY null, we cannot be certain that a non-catholic marrying in a civil ceremony is null, and in any case they would all require a declaration of nullity.

This is because, properly understood, an annulment tribunal does not “annul” an existing marraige. They declare null a marraige, saying that it never existed. Hence why ALL marraiges, even those which are plainly null, require a declaration of nullity from a tribunal.

 

[1ke]

Yeah… I was gonna be like whhaaaaattttt??? Because I always thought that non-Catholic, civil-only marriages were invalid.

This is not correct. Non-Catholics contract marriage validly when they marry civilly. If both are baptized it is a sacrament. If one or neither are baptized, it is a valid natural marriage.

Phemie’s comment was about Catholics, who are obligated to observe the Catholic form of marriage and Catholic Canon Law, although Canon Law allows for a dispensation from form in some cases (but the marriage is invalid without the dispensation).m

Anyways, to the OP, no, a declaration of nullity would NOT be required, because they were never married in a religious institution, and therefore the Church does not recognize that marriage as valid.

This is NOT correct.

 

[1ke]

Ok, so here’s the thing. A non-Catholic woman (who has been engaged six times but always gets cold feet) gets pregnant by a man she does not love. They contract a civil marriage but due to mutual contempt they eventually legally separate. If she later meets a man she loves, converts, and desires to marry in the Church does she need an annulment or was the civil marriage invalid from the start? This unfortunate woman is the only one I’ve ever loved. Thank you.

She needs to see her priest. There are facts and details that need to be examined, such as whether or not the ex was baptized a Catholic or Orthodox, whether or not the ex was previously married, etc.

She should lay out all the facts with the priest and he will inform her what paperwork process she needs to follow and whether a full tribunal investigation will be required or not. Whether or not she has a case that should proceed as a full Tribunal decree of nullity, a dissolution of the bond via the Pauline or Petrine Privilege, a Lack of Form case, or a Ligamen case will depend upon these facts.

What is absolutely true is that she must be declared free to marry by one of these processes before you can proceed to be involved with her.

 

[Castello]

And a marriage can be valid and the couple never be “in love”.

 

[FrDavid96]

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

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

 

[FrDavid96]

Ok, so here’s the thing. A non-Catholic woman (who has been engaged six times but always gets cold feet) gets pregnant by a man she does not love. They contract a civil marriage but due to mutual contempt they eventually legally separate. If she later meets a man she loves, converts, and desires to marry in the Church does she need an annulment or was the civil marriage invalid from the start? This unfortunate woman is the only one I’ve ever loved. Thank you.

Whether or not the civil marriage was “invalid from the start” is something that a tribunal would have to decide.

She would need to have a declaration of nullity before she marries in the Church (if she does convert, and if she does decide to get married)…

The other options are that if she was either unbaptised at the time of the first marriage, or if she was baptised (but not Catholic and her first husband was never baptised) and she does indeed convert to Catholic, she might petition for Pauline Privilege or Petrine Privilege. If one of those apply, she would then be able to marry without an annulment. These are complicated and rare.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.
…

Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

Were both she and her former husband Baptized?
Did he have a previous marriage?

I have a lot of sad stories from those who assumed their previous marriage was not a factor and got a rude surprise when they were ready for a wedding. My rule was “If you ever stood beside someone of the opposite sex and said* I Do* and there was someone with legal status to witness marriages, you must submit it to the Tribunal.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Were both she and her former husband Baptized?
Did he have a previous marriage?

I have a lot of sad stories from those who assumed their previous marriage was not a factor and got a rude surprise when they were ready for a wedding. My rule was “If you ever stood beside someone of the opposite sex and said* I Do* and there was someone with legal status to witness marriages, you must submit it to the Tribunal.”

Exactly.

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.

And that (the contrary is proven) cannot happen without submitting the case to a tribunal.

Of course, if the “other” spouse is deceased, the marriage no longer exists in any case.

 

[Phemie]

Yeah… I was gonna be like whhaaaaattttt??? Because I always thought that non-Catholic, civil-only marriages were invalid.

Anyways, to the OP, no, a declaration of nullity would NOT be required, because they were never married in a religious institution, and therefore the Church does not recognize that marriage as valid.

The civil marriages of non-Catholics ARE considered valid.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yeah… I was gonna be like whhaaaaattttt??? Because I always thought that non-Catholic, civil-only marriages were invalid.

Anyways, to the OP, no, a declaration of nullity would NOT be required, because they were never married in a religious institution, and therefore the Church does not recognize that marriage as valid.

First, remember that the question is about a non-Catholic person (baptised or not, we don’t know).

Here’s how it works:

A civil-only marriage of a Catholic is not a valid marriage.

When we’re talking about the subject of marriage and the sacrament in general, we can say what is or is-not a valid marriage.

However, when talking about a particular marriage (or attempt at marriage) that actually exists in real-life, every marriage “enjoys the favor of the law” which means that even if the marriage is very obviously an invalid one, it takes the decision of a marriage tribunal to actually declare it invalid before anyone can say “that attempt at marriage was invalid.”

Does that make sense?
In other words, we need to speak differently when we’re discussing the topic of valid marriages, compared to discussing a specific marriage.

I can see how that might be a bit confusing, so post a response if you need clarification.

 

[Phemie]

First, remember that the question is about a non-Catholic person (baptised or not, we don’t know).

Here’s how it works:

A civil-only marriage of a Catholic is not a valid marriage.

When we’re talking about the subject of marriage and the sacrament in general, we can say what is or is-not a valid marriage.

However, when talking about a particular marriage (or attempt at marriage) that actually exists in real-life, every marriage “enjoys the favor of the law” which means that even if the marriage is very obviously an invalid one, it takes the decision of a marriage tribunal to actually declare it invalid before anyone can say “that attempt at marriage was invalid.”

Does that make sense?
In other words, we need to speak differently when we’re discussing the topic of valid marriages, compared to discussing a specific marriage.

I can see how that might be a bit confusing, so post a response if you need clarification.

Civil only marriages of Catholics where no dispensation was granted do not have to be submitted to the Tribunal. They are not judicial cases but administrative cases. While most dioceses will send them to the Tribunal for review, our former bishop had priests take care of it at the parish level.

 

[FrDavid96]

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

underlining added.

Civil only marriages of Catholics where no dispensation was granted do not have to be submitted to the Tribunal. They are not judicial cases but administrative cases. While most dioceses will send them to the Tribunal for review, our former bishop had priests take care of it at the parish level.

If a bishop chooses to delegate that function, that’s his decision to make.

But it does not change the fact that every marriage enjoys the favor of the law, and until that marriage is formally declared null, it is indeed considered a valid marriage.

 

[josephback]

Thanks everybody. Right now it’s hypothetical but I was wondering for the future. What about a man(myself) who was once engaged to a Catholic but never actually married. I would think engagements count in spirit even if they don’t meet the strict legal definition…

 

[Castello]

Thanks everybody. Right now it’s hypothetical but I was wondering for the future. What about a man(myself) who was once engaged to a Catholic but never actually married. I would think engagements count in spirit even if they don’t meet the strict legal definition…

No, engagements are not binding in any way. You are free to walk away until you exchange consent in a valid marriage.

 

[1ke]

Exactly.

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.

And that (the contrary is proven) cannot happen without submitting the case to a tribunal.

Of course, if the “other” spouse is deceased, the marriage no longer exists in any case.

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.