Edited: Marriage question: Annulment necessary for civil unions?

[FrDavid96]

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.

There has to be some kind of declaration of nullity. As I have been saying, that process can be a long one or a short one. It can be done through the formal process or declaring an attempt at marriage null, or it can be an administrative process (determined by the bishop or his delegate).

It does not change the fact that every marriage is presumed valid until otherwise proven. Once it is proven, then it no longer enjoys the favor of the law.

A marriage is never presumed to be invalid. It has to be proven. Only after it’s proven can it be said to be invalid.

Every poster here has started by giving an example of a marriage that is proven to be invalid then saying that such a marriage is not presumed valid. Of course not because the invalidity is presented as a “given” in the argument.

 

[nodito]

A marriage is never presumed to be invalid. It has to be proven. Only after it’s proven can it be said to be invalid.

Every poster here has started by giving an example of a marriage that is proven to be invalid then saying that such a marriage is not presumed valid. Of course not because the invalidity is presented as a “given” in the argument.

Perhaps the confusion is this: what is a marriage? Is it any time a civil marriage is contracted? If so, would we presume the marriage between two men to be valid unless proven otherwise (i.e., brought before a tribunal or through an administrative process)?

Let’s say that’s all we know. John and Mark get married in Vermont. They tell people they are married. Does this marriage enjoy the favor of the law under canon 1116?

 

[jollybird]

There has to be some kind of declaration of nullity. As I have been saying, that process can be a long one or a short one. It can be done through the formal process or declaring an attempt at marriage null, or it can be an administrative process (determined by the bishop or his delegate).

It does not change the fact that every marriage is presumed valid until otherwise proven. Once it is proven, then it no longer enjoys the favor of the law.

A marriage is never presumed to be invalid. It has to be proven. Only after it’s proven can it be said to be invalid.

Every poster here has started by giving an example of a marriage that is proven to be invalid then saying that such a marriage is not presumed valid. Of course not because the invalidity is presented as a “given” in the argument.

I believe the confusion is in saying there has to be a decree of nullity without initially explaining that the priest can just verbally “decree” it invalid based on his knowledge - the same as most are doing on this list serve.

The Tribunal told me that if I did not con-validate my marriage through vows or through a sanation, I was still free to marry another Catholic in the church without submitting a case to the Tribunal (provided I was civilly divorced) which says to me there does not always have to be contact with the Tribunal.

 

[dans0622]

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.

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

Hi Father,

It’s not that anyone has proven anything to be invalid or is presuming that this sort of marriage is invalid. This sort of “marriage” (a Catholic in a civil union) doesn’t even exist in the law of the Church. The civil law would have the same view of citizens who did not even attempt to marry according to the civil law. Let’s say the couple goes to a football game and express their marital consent before the team mascot. They even get a certificate documenting the fact. That is not an invalid marriage. That is not a presumptively valid marriage. It is nothing but silliness.

The process of establishing that a Catholic bound to observe canonical form did not even attempt to do so is not a judicial process. Such a judicial process (whether formal or documentary) is necessary to overturn the presumption of law stated in c. 1060. The fact that the law does not require any judicial process to determine that a Catholic was bound to observe canonical form, but did not, is proof that the presumption of c. 1060 does not apply to this situation. If it did, some standard, judicial process would be mandatory. As it is, all “the Vatican” requires is that the pre-matrimonial investigation establish these facts, somehow.

I’ll put this another way. What you are speaking of as “proving that the marriage is invalid” is not what is happening in this process. What we are doing is establishing/proving that a Catholic bound to observe canonical form did not attempt to do it. If this fact is established, their civil marriage never existed as far as the law of the Catholic Church is concerned. No presumptions are present or overturned.

Regarding the scenario you presented, it would depend on what documentation could be produced and if it could be determined that the “extraordinary form” was actually used or at least attempted.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[TrueLight]

FrDavid,

I understand what you are saying based on Canon law, but I don’t think you answered the gist of Phemie’s question. I may have missed it.

Is someone in a marriage that appears invalid on its face allowed to receive communion? Or can they receive communion until a tribunal or someone in authority states they are in an invalid marriage?

 

[Warrior1979]

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.

I’ve thought about it, and I think the above is where the confusion lies for many (myself included). One situation deals with the annulment, the other situation deals with convalidation. I think the issues are being conflated by many, which is the source of the confusion.

 

[jollybird]

FrDavid,

I understand what you are saying based on Canon law, but I don’t think you answered the gist of Phemie’s question. I may have missed it.

Is someone in a marriage that appears invalid on its face allowed to receive communion? Or can they receive communion until a tribunal or someone in authority states they are in an invalid marriage?

Very good question.

 

[jollybird]

I’ve thought about it, and I think the above is where the confusion lies for many (myself included). One situation deals with the annulment, the other situation deals with convalidation. I think the issues are being conflated by many, which is the source of the confusion.

But isn’t the question (as it has evolved) whether or not a Catholic must have a Decree of Nullity prior to con-validation either through vows or sanation?

 

[jollybird]

Hi Father,

It’s not that anyone has proven anything to be invalid or is presuming that this sort of marriage is invalid. This sort of “marriage” (a Catholic in a civil union) doesn’t even exist in the law of the Church. The civil law would have the same view of citizens who did not even attempt to marry according to the civil law. Let’s say the couple goes to a football game and express their marital consent before the team mascot. They even get a certificate documenting the fact. That is not an invalid marriage. That is not a presumptively valid marriage. It is nothing but silliness.

In about 11 states, this would make a legal marriage provided the two were free to marry and intended to be married. Its called common-law marriage.

 

[Warrior1979]

But isn’t the question (as it has evolved) whether or not a Catholic must have a Decree of Nullity prior to con-validation either through vows or sanation?

Beats me. It would seem to make sense to me that such a decree would be necessary if a Catholic was previously civilly married, even in the cases 1ke cited. The reason I come to that conclusion is that there are emergency situations where Catholics can validly marry outside of the Church and without permission, and therefore would not be recorded in any Church record.

 

[FrDavid96]

Perhaps the confusion is this: what is a marriage? Is it any time a civil marriage is contracted? If so, would we presume the marriage between two men to be valid unless proven otherwise (i.e., brought before a tribunal or through an administrative process)?

Let’s say that’s all we know. John and Mark get married in Vermont. They tell people they are married. Does this marriage enjoy the favor of the law under canon 1116?

That does not apply because the subject of the discussion is not marriage.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

I’ll put this another way. What you are speaking of as “proving that the marriage is invalid” is not what is happening in this process. What we are doing is establishing/proving that a Catholic bound to observe canonical form did not attempt to do it. If this fact is established, their civil marriage never existed as far as the law of the Catholic Church is concerned. No presumptions are present or overturned.

…

By your own words, you are proving that a marriage did not happen.

Since something has been “proved” it is no longer “presumed” it is a known fact.

Before it is proved, it is NOT presumed to be invalid.

Do you know what the definition of “presumed” is?

It means that one does not yet have all the facts, or those facts have been presented but one has not yet come to a conclusion.

A marriage is never “presumed” to be invalid, since by the very definition of the word “presumed” the speaker does not yet have all the facts.

 

[FrDavid96]

But isn’t the question (as it has evolved) whether or not a Catholic must have a Decree of Nullity prior to con-validation either through vows or sanation?

No. That’s not the question. People have been trying to make it into the question.

The issue is whether or not a marriage is “presumed to be invalid.”

As I keep repeating, marriages are not “presumed” to be invalid. That status must be proven. Once it is proven, it is no longer a presumption, it is a fact.

It’s not necessarily about a formal decree of nullity, it can be an administrative decree.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t think some people here understand the definition of the word “presume”

To presume something means that one does not have all the facts.

Here’s the first definition of the word that came up in an internet search:

1 Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability: “I presumed that the man had been escorted from the building”.
2 Take for granted that something exists or is the case.

Marriages are not said to be null and void based on “probability.” They are null and void based on facts, not on presumptions.

The Church does not “take for granted” that a marriage is null because there is always the possibility that the marriage might in fact be valid. The fact of the invalidity has to be proved. Before it is proved, it is not “presumed” to be invalid.

 

[Irishgal49]

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.

This flies in the face of what my priest told me. I am a Catholic who married outside the Catholic Church. I was told my marriage was not only not valid, it was not recognized at all. Neither of us has a living former spouse. I was told that if we lived together we would be “living in sin” because we are “not married” in the eyes of the church.

 

[Irishgal49]

The problem for me is I am told my marriage is not a marriage because I married outside the church. No other living spouses from any prior marriages are in the picture. We are living apart, getting divorced. I was told that if we were living together I could not take communion. So much for ‘valid until proven invalid’…I would be banned from sacraments yet I could not remarry without a declaration of the marriage being “failure to follow form”? See how this is trying to have it both ways. If my marriage is valid until proven otherwise, then how come I would be banned from all sacraments if we were living in the same home without so much as an interview/investigation to see if we have a valid sacramental marriage?

 

[FrDavid96]

This flies in the face of what my priest told me. I am a Catholic who married outside the Catholic Church. I was told my marriage was not only not valid, it was not recognized at all. Neither of us has a living former spouse. I was told that if we lived together we would be “living in sin” because we are “not married” in the eyes of the church.

And to put my answer back into context, it was in response to this

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.”

It does not change the fact that the Church never presumes that a marriage is invalid.

Please lookup the definition of the word presume.

verb (used with object)

1. to take for granted, assume, or suppose: I presume you’re tired after your drive.
2. Law. to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
3. to undertake with unwarrantable boldness.
4. to undertake (to do something) without right or permission: to presume to speak for another.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/presume

 

[TrueLight]

My last try at getting this question answered. After this, I give up.

FrDavid,

I understand what you are saying based on Canon law, but I don’t think you answered the gist of Phemie’s question. I may have missed it.

Is someone in a marriage that appears invalid on its face allowed to receive communion? Or can they receive communion until a tribunal or someone in authority states they are in an invalid marriage?

 

[FrDavid96]

My last try at getting this question answered. After this, I give up.

I’ve been ignoring the question because it did not make any positive contribution to the discussion. It was nothing more than a red herring–to use a technical term.

First of all, I beg you to look at what I keep saying

The Church never presumes a marriage to be invalid.

And look at the definition of “presume” that I posted, in particular #2.

1. Law. to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Now, take my sentence, and insert the definition

“The Church never assumes as true in the absence of proof to the contrary that a marriage is invalid.”

Again, I’ll repeat that the Church never presumes a marriage to be invalid.

Now, to get back to the question which you think is so critical:

There are different standards for “knowing” that someone is ineligible to be admitted to Holy Communion and “knowing” that someone is eligible to be married in the Church (eligible with regard to “freedom to marry” because of a prior bond, or lack of it).

The first one, eligible to receive Communion is not itself a legal act. Yes, it is defined in canon law, but receiving Communion is not a legal or juridic act. In contrast, the marriage covenant is a sacred contract, and as such it is subject to a much stricter legal interpretation.

If someone comes up to me (as a priest) and asks me (in confidence or otherwise) “since I committed murder yesterday, am I eligible to receive Communion today?” Of course, the answer would be “no, because your soul is not in a proper state to receive the Body of Christ”

Likewise, if someone were to approach me and ask “given my marriage situation, and it is this-that-and-the-other-thing, am I eligible to receive Communion?” The answer would still be “No.” (Assuming, of course, that the answer would indeed be no, and not yes, if the marriage is a valid and licit one)

On the other hand, if I am standing in a court of law and I make a statement that a person is “guilty under the law” of murder, I can never do that until that fact has been proven to the satisfaction of the law (innocent until proven guilty).

There is no inconsistency in the fact that I tell an un-convicted murder that he is ineligible to receive Communion because he is not in a state of grace at one moment; and at another moment I state that the very same murderer is “innocent until proven guilty” as far as the law is concerned.

One is a question of the state of a person’s soul–that is either the murder or the Catholic in an irregular marriage.

The other is a question of law (civil or Church) which states that the accused is “presumed innocent until proven guilty” or that a marriage is “presumed valid until otherwise proven.”

As a priest (or any other Catholic person for that matter) I cannot ever presume that a person’s marriage was invalid. The fact of the invalidity must first be proved. If a person approaches me within the context of seeking an annulment or seeking to be married in the Church, I can never presume that any marriage was invalid. It must be proved invalid. In this context, I am acting as a representative of the Church and I am making a determination (on behalf of the Church) that a person either “is” or “is not” eligible to enter into a marriage contract recognized and blessed by the Church. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, there are different ways that the invalidity can be “proven.” Of course, a formal and final declaration of nullity is the most obvious. Another way is by the “short form” of an administrative decision made by the bishop or his delegate. That delegate might be the vicar general, or the judicial vicar, or the chancellor, or a judge of the tribunal, or anyone else to whom the bishop delegates this legal authority. But the fact remains that in order to make that decision in a legal context, the person must have the authority to declare that an attempt at marriage was null.

Determining someone’s freedom to marry is an administrative act of the Church. It is a legal process of the Church (though not “legal process” in the same sense as an ecclesiastical trial, of course).

Determining one’s eligibility to receive Communion has a much different “standard of proof.” This is not a legal decision as such. It is important to keep in mind that when a priest advises someone “you are not eligible to receive Communion” that priest is NOT at that moment making a legal determination as to the validity or invalidity of a person’s marriage. He is making a spiritual determination as to the state of the person’s soul.

And furthermore, it is not the fact that a Catholic is in a civil-only marriage that makes such a one ineligible to receive Communion. It is the fact that the Catholic is cohabiting and engaging in relations which are properly restricted to the marriage covenant which make one ineligible. A Catholic who merely has a marriage certificate from the state (and nothing more) is not prohibited from receiving Communion. It’s not the paper that matters; what matters is what is happening in the bedroom.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again…

The Church never presumes that a marriage is invalid.

There. I’ve now answered the question that you find so important. Do you see now why I ignored the question from the start?

 

[TrueLight]

There. I’ve now answered the question that you find so important. Do you see now why I ignored the question from the start?

With all due respect, what I do see is that I made a mistake in thinking you were charitable. I do not appreciate your sarcasm at all.

It was no red herring. I have no agenda in this conversation. I don’t have any marriage issues. In fact, I pretty much agreed with you. But Phemie asked a good question. You may not think it was a good question, and that it added nothing to the conversation, but I disagree and apparently others thought it was a good question.

When one is learning, it is important to understand topics at all angles.

And one does not have to dig one’s heels in once a pronouncement is made. It is okay to say in this case, this applies and in this case it does not.

But thank you for replying, even if you weren’t very nice.