Edited: Marriage question: Annulment necessary for civil unions?

[dans0622]

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.

Hi Father,

Great. One of my favorite, memorized definitions. Yes, in canon law, a presumption is a probable conjecture about an uncertain matter (c. 1584).

For the topic at hand, you could say that a Catholic who enters a civil union, having given no attempt to observe canonical form, is in a presumptively “non-existent marriage.” You’ll not see that anywhere in the law. But, that’s how we treat these “marriages.”

The practice of the Church in dealing with these cases as she does (expecting nothing more than a pre-matrimonial investigation) should be proof enough that the presumption of c. 1060 is not present. If it was, why does no defender of the bond defend that presumptively valid bond? Why does the Church require no particular judicial process in attempting to overturn it?

Finally, I think c. 124.2 is pertinent here and helps us understand when the presumption of c. 1060 arises: “A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.” A Catholic who totally ignores canonical form did not place that juridic act correctly with respect to its external elements. The presumption of validity is not present.

I do not see how your position is reflected in the day-to-day legal/moral practice of the Church or her canonical tradition.

Thank you for your time.

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

I have attempted to edit my previous post, but the time has expired.
This is how the previous post should have read:

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, here’s what I keep saying, and why I say it:

The Church never presumes a marriage to be invalid.

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

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.

The Church never presumes that a marriage is invalid…
Because to “presume” something means that one does not yet have all the facts established.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hi Father,

Great. One of my favorite, memorized definitions. Yes, in canon law, a presumption is a probable conjecture about an uncertain matter (c. 1584).

For the topic at hand, you could say that a Catholic who enters a civil union, having given no attempt to observe canonical form, is in a presumptively “non-existent marriage.” You’ll not see that anywhere in the law. But, that’s how we treat these “marriages.”

The practice of the Church in dealing with these cases as she does (expecting nothing more than a pre-matrimonial investigation) should be proof enough that the presumption of c. 1060 is not present. If it was, why does no defender of the bond defend that presumptively valid bond? Why does the Church require no particular judicial process in attempting to overturn it?

Finally, I think c. 124.2 is pertinent here and helps us understand when the presumption of c. 1060 arises: “A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.” A Catholic who totally ignores canonical form did not place that juridic act correctly with respect to its external elements. The presumption of validity is not present.

I do not see how your position is reflected in the day-to-day legal/moral practice of the Church or her canonical tradition.

Thank you for your time.

Dan

Dan,

It’s what I keep saying all along.

I’ve bolded a part of your 3rd paragraph. Here is is again “The practice of the Church in dealing with these cases as she does (expecting nothing more than a pre-matrimonial investigation) should be proof enough that the presumption of c. 1060 is not present.”

Yes. I agree that the administrative decision is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of c. 1060 that a marriage is presumed valid until the contrary is proven. What I keep saying is that once that happens, once the marriage has been examined in a completed pre-marital investigation, the fact of the invalidity has indeed been proven. It is now proven. It is no longer a presumption, but a fact. That’s the point. It’s the difference between a presumption and a proven fact.

On the other hand, before that pre-marital investigation has occurred, before all the facts have been presented and examined, when one is in the state of making “presumptions” rather than dealing with “facts” the presumption is that a marriage is a valid one.

If a bishop decides to delegate the authority to a priest to make the determination that an attempted marriage was invalid, then once that investigation is complete, and once the determination has been made, then yes, the attempt at marriage no longer enjoys the favor of the law.

On the other hand, if the bishop has NOT delegated this legal authority to the priest (and most have not), then the priest has no standing under canon law to make any definitive determination that a marriage was an invalid attempt. No matter how certain that priest might be that the attempt was invalid, from his perspective, that marriage is presumed to be valid until the person who has the authority to make such a legal decision actually makes it.

 

[jollybird]

Dan,

If a bishop decides to delegate the authority to a priest to make the determination that an attempted marriage was invalid, then once that investigation is complete, and once the determination has been made, then yes, the attempt at marriage no longer enjoys the favor of the law.

So as I pointed out before, The Tribunal told me that if I were married to another Catholic civilly, divorced him and wanted to remarry in the church I would not need to submit a case to them in that case. I’d just need to get a license and prepare as usual for Matrimony. This was part of the conversation I had re: a radical sanation and whether or not I was sure I wanted to go through with it which I guess answered their question if the intent to stay married is real.

Are you saying what the tribunal told me is wrong?

You started by saying that the marriage would have to have a decree of nullity. Are you now saying that the entire situation can be handled by a simple conversation?

" We want to marry."
Priest - OK, have you ever been married before?
“civil marriage only”
Priest - are you legally divorced?
“Yes”
Priest - Your OK, that was not a valid marriage.

Is that the decree of nullity?

 

[FrDavid96]

So as I pointed out before, The Tribunal told me that if I were married to another Catholic civilly, divorced him and wanted to remarry in the church I would not need to submit a case to them in that case. I’d just need to get a license and prepare as usual for Matrimony. This was part of the conversation I had re: a radical sanation and whether or not I was sure I wanted to go through with it which I guess answered their question if the intent to stay married is real.

Are you saying what the tribunal told me is wrong?

You started by saying that the marriage would have to have a decree of nullity. Are you now saying that the entire situation can be handled by a simple conversation?

" We want to marry."
Priest - OK, have you ever been married before?
“civil marriage only”
Priest - are you legally divorced?
“Yes”
Priest - Your OK, that was not a valid marriage.

Is that the decree of nullity?

I am saying that what the tribunal told you was correct.

You keep talking about your situation AFTER you presented your case to the marriage tribunal (or someone else in authority at the diocese).

On the other hand, I am talking about a situation BEFORE it is investigated and BEFORE the facts have been presented and a conclusion determined.

We’re talking about two different things.

 

[FrDavid96]

So as I pointed out before, The Tribunal told me that if I were married to another Catholic civilly, divorced him and wanted to remarry in the church I would not need to submit a case to them in that case. I’d just need to get a license and prepare as usual for Matrimony. This was part of the conversation I had re: a radical sanation and whether or not I was sure I wanted to go through with it which I guess answered their question if the intent to stay married is real.

Are you saying what the tribunal told me is wrong?

You started by saying that the marriage would have to have a decree of nullity. Are you now saying that the entire situation can be handled by a simple conversation?

" We want to marry."
Priest - OK, have you ever been married before?
“civil marriage only”
Priest - are you legally divorced?
“Yes”
Priest - Your OK, that was not a valid marriage.

Is that the decree of nullity?

Jollybird,
Let me give you an example of what I’m trying to say here.

Let’s ask the question “Who was President of the United States in January 1989?”

Two people answer the question.

One says “Ronald Reagan”
Another says “George H W Bush”

Which one is correct?
They are both correct.

The one who answered “Reagan” is correct because until Jan. 20, 1989 he was in fact the President.

The one who answered “Bush” is correct because beginning Jan 20, 1989, he was in fact the President.

One is talking about “before the inauguration.” The other is talking about “after the inauguration.”

Neither is wrong.

It’s the same here with our conversation. I am talking about the situation before the facts have been established (January 1). You are talking about after the facts have been established (February 1).

Do you see the difference?

 

[jollybird]

Jollybird,
Let me give you an example of what I’m trying to say here.

Let’s ask the question “Who was President of the United States in January 1989?”

Two people answer the question.

One says “Ronald Reagan”
Another says “George H W Bush”

Which one is correct?
They are both correct.

The one who answered “Reagan” is correct because until Jan. 20, 1989 he was in fact the President.

The one who answered “Bush” is correct because beginning Jan 20, 1989, he was in fact the President.

One is talking about “before the inauguration.” The other is talking about “after the inauguration.”

Neither is wrong.

It’s the same here with our conversation. I am talking about the situation before the facts have been established (January 1). You are talking about after the facts have been established (February 1).

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I see the difference and I do appreciate your persistence in trying to explain. But…I don’t think I was clear in the phrasing. I was told that if I never had asked for the sanation at all meaning no contact with the Tribunal,or any priest, at all about any matter, I never would have had to come to them as a Catholic who was married and divorced civilly and who later wanted to marry in the church. In that case would the conversation I created above be sufficient?

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, I see the difference and I do appreciate your persistence in trying to explain. But…I don’t think I was clear in the phrasing. I was told that if I never had asked for the sanation at all meaning no contact with the Tribunal,or any priest, at all about any matter, I never would have had to come to them as a Catholic who was married and divorced civilly and who later wanted to marry in the church. In that case would the conversation I created above be sufficient?

Actually no. I doesn’t explain it. What I mean by that is “I do not understand the situation.”

There are other details that I don’t have.

From where I sit, that just doesn’t make any sense. I’m sure that what they said was legitimate, but given what I have I cannot understand it, much less discuss it.

I cannot see how a person could have “no contact with…any priest” with regard to a previous marriage, but then later be married in the Church.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

How are we to know who is providing correct information in this discussion and who is not? Several posters have stated that a lack of canonical form case is an administrative process and may be dealt with by a priest. At least one poster says they are cases that must go before a tribunal. I have read two books by American authors regarding annulment. They both say that lack of canonical form cases must go to tribunal and have a decree of nullity granted. In New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (an American publication) it also states lack of canonical form cases must go to a tribunal, the defender of the bond must be involved, a decree pf nullity must be issued, and the case must go to the appeal tribunal for confirmation of the decree of nullity.

 

[FrDavid96]

How are we to know who is providing correct information in this discussion and who is not? Several posters have stated that a lack of canonical form case is an administrative process and may be dealt with by a priest. At least one poster says they are cases that must go before a tribunal. I have read two books by American authors regarding annulment. They both say that lack of canonical form cases must go to tribunal and have a decree of nullity granted. In New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (an American publication) it also states lack of canonical form cases must go to a tribunal, the defender of the bond must be involved, a decree pf nullity must be issued, and the case must go to the appeal tribunal for confirmation of the decree of nullity.

As for the lack of canonical form cases. They have to be decided by the local bishop, or his delegate. Exactly who that delegate may be will often vary from one diocese to another. The judicial vicar, the vicar general, etc. One poster mentioned that it’s handled at the parish level. While that is a bit out of the ordinary, there’s nothing preventing a bishop from delegating to “all pastors” (for example) the authority to do this. Of course, they would have to follow the same standards and still make the decision official. In some dioceses, it is the tribunal. This is all little more than a matter of how to address an envelope. In any case, a decree of nullity will be issued (assuming of course it applies). Even if that’s just a matter of filling-in the appropriate section on the standard pre-marital investigation forms.

As for what it says in the commentaries what you’ve posted conflicts with my own experience, and I do think the experience of most. Perhaps they are discussing a particular kind of lack of form case? Maybe if one party disputes it? Or if there is some doubt that the there was a lack of dispensation or the possibility of circumstances which would allow for the marriage to be celebrated in the presence of witnesses alone?

I did find this from 1971 (note that this was the old code, not the current code).

I am mentioning this ONLY because it seems to match just what you mentioned above.

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.

XI. With the same provisions and in the same manner as in n. X, the Ordinary can declare a marriage null also when the case was entered into on the grounds of lack of canonical form or lack of a valid mandate on the part of the proxy.

XII. If the Defender of the Bond prudently considers that the impediments of defects mentioned in nn. X and XI are not certain or that it is probable that there was a dispensation from them, he is bound to appeal against this declaration to the judge of second instance. The proceedings are to be transmitted to him and he is to be notified in writing that the case is a special one.

XIII. The judge of second instance, with the sole intervention of the Defender of the Bond, shall decide in the same way as in n. X whether the sentence is to be confirmed or whether the case is to be proceeded with through the ordinary channels of law. In this latter case he shall send it back to the tribunal of first instance.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19710328_causas-matrimoniales_en.html

 

[HankCa]

great post , thank you friend!

 

[nodito]

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

Father, please be patient with me. I’m really trying to understand this, I promise. Perhaps I am just missing something obvious.

In the example I gave, where two men say they are married, we can clearly look at their relationship and say, that’s not a valid marriage. It’s not a marriage at all, because two men can’t marry. But neither can two people marry who are already married to other people. And neither can a Catholic marry an athiest on the beach without getting a dispensation. So if we, as outside observers, are able to evaluate one type of relationship based on obvious and public information (the couple’s gender, for example) and know that it is not a marriage, why is it not possible to do the same with heterosexual marriage attempts when information about the spouses is is also publically or personally known?

Put another way, I would not attend the presumptively invalid wedding of my Catholic sibling if she were to confide in me that she planned to disregard Church law and marry her boyfriend in a civil ceremony. If she chooses to go ahead with this civil ceremony anyway, should I recognize the marriage as valid after the fact? That is, I can assume it won’t be valid ten minutes before the vows, but I presume that it is valid ten minutes after?

Thank you for your time and patience.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, please be patient with me. I’m really trying to understand this, I promise. Perhaps I am just missing something obvious.

In the example I gave, where two men say they are married, we can clearly look at their relationship and say, that’s not a valid marriage. It’s not a marriage at all, because two men can’t marry. But neither can two people marry who are already married to other people. And neither can a Catholic marry an athiest on the beach without getting a dispensation. So if we, as outside observers, are able to evaluate one type of relationship based on obvious and public information (the couple’s gender, for example) and know that it is not a marriage, why is it not possible to do the same with heterosexual marriage attempts when information about the spouses is is also publically or personally known?

Put another way, I would not attend the presumptively invalid wedding of my Catholic sibling if she were to confide in me that she planned to disregard Church law and marry her boyfriend in a civil ceremony. If she chooses to go ahead with this civil ceremony anyway, should I recognize the marriage as valid after the fact? That is, I can assume it won’t be valid ten minutes before the vows, but I presume that it is valid ten minutes after?

Thank you for your time and patience.

It is the difference between making a presumption on the one hand, and on the other hand, dealing with established, proven facts.

If there is no possibility whatsoever that the situation can be a marriage (like 2 men, or a man marrying a toaster) then the subject matter is not even marriage at all. So the issue of presuming valid or invalid just doesn’t come into the conversation. It cannot be valid if it cannot be a marriage.

On the other hand: We do not “presume” that a marriage is invalid if that marriage might (just might) indeed be a valid one. When we say that a marriage cannot be valid “without a dispensation” or “without certain circumstances” there is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that those circumstances might apply and the marriage just might be a valid one. If the situation “might” be a marriage, then we do not presume that it is not so, until the facts have been proven.

Let’s look at the possible marriage of your sister. The fact that you know she doesn’t have a dispensation but she’s still getting married outside of canonical form, and you know that the extenuating circumstances don’t apply in her situation, that’s sufficient proof for you to decide not to participate in the wedding and for you personally to regard her marriage as an invalid attempt at marriage. Not legally, not canonically, but only personally.

It’s like the example I gave above about the murderer. If someone says to me “I murdered someone yesterday” I can say that such a person is a murderer, but I can only say it in a personal context. On the other hand, in a legal context, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law. The presumption of innocence applies to an accused murderer just as the presumption of validity applies to a marriage–once it’s proven, it is no longer presumed valid.

To get back to the analogy of your sister’s wedding:
If you are a priest and 10 years later, your sister is divorced and wants to marry a Catholic in a church wedding, you can’t just go by what you remember and dismiss the first marriage as “null and void” and perform the 2nd ceremony without following the proper procedures to have that first marriage declared null. We can’t say that the marriage is invalid until it has been proven to be invalid.

Think about it: is there even the most remote possibility that your sister did get a dispensation from canonical form (and maybe the JP is also a minister), but for whatever reason she just didn’t tell you? I’m not asking if it’s likely (I admit it’s highly unlikely), I’m only asking if it is possible.

Look at the words Pope Paul VI used back in 1971 to describe the procedures.

“When there is proof from a certain and authentic document, not subject to any contradiction or exception…and when it is also equally certain and clear that no dispensation… has been given…”

That was the standard for determining that a marriage was actually an invalid attempt. But look at the words. He required proof and certainty. Not presumption, not conjecture, not assumptions, but proof.

And that’s the point I keep trying to make here. The situation has to be proven before we can say that a marriage was invalid. Once it is proven, then it no longer enjoys the favor of the law. Keep in mind that once it’s proven, it is no longer a presumption, it is now an established fact.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

There is more information that is needed before a definitive answer can be given. For starters, is the non-Catholic baptized or not? Did they marry a Catholic, a baptized nonCatholic, or a nonbaptized person? Was the nonCatholic woman baptized Catholic as a baby?
Depending on the answers she might need an annulment or a Pauline/Petrine Privilege

Secondly, I don’t think many posters are understanding what Fr. David is saying. Anytime vows are publicly/formally exchanged it is presumed that they are valid. The burden of proof that they are not is easier at some times than others, however they are still initially presumed valid…

 

[dans0622]

…Secondly, I don’t think many posters are understanding what Fr. David is saying. Anytime vows are publicly/formally exchanged it is presumed that they are valid. The burden of proof that they are not is easier at some times than others, however they are still initially presumed valid…

Hello,

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.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

How are we to know who is providing correct information in this discussion and who is not? Several posters have stated that a lack of canonical form case is an administrative process and may be dealt with by a priest. At least one poster says they are cases that must go before a tribunal. I have read two books by American authors regarding annulment. They both say that lack of canonical form cases must go to tribunal and have a decree of nullity granted. In New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (an American publication) it also states lack of canonical form cases must go to a tribunal, the defender of the bond must be involved, a decree pf nullity must be issued, and the case must go to the appeal tribunal for confirmation of the decree of nullity.

Hello Matthew,

There must be some misunderstanding here. I don’t have that commentary on hand but I can’t believe that it says a lack of canonical form case involves a defender of the bond, goes on appeal, etc. They do not. In the USA, it is true that most dioceses require these cases to be handled at the Tribunal. In practice, this means that a secretary gathers the documents and gives a “decree” to whomever is supposed to sign it, stating that there was a lack of form and the person is considered free to marry. That’s the end of the road. There is no defender, no appeal, no testimony of witnesses, no trial.

“The Vatican” does not require any particular process. So, you will find some variation from country to country or even diocese to diocese. For references, see:

Dignitas connubii, art. 5.3: “§ 3. However, in order to establish the free state of those who, while bound to observe the canonical form of marriage according to can. 1117, attempted marriage before a civil official or non-Catholic minister, it is sufficient to use the prematrimonial investigation in accordance with cann. 1066-1071(15).”

and

Pontifical council for legislative texts: “D. Utrum ad comprobandum statum liberum eorum qui, etsi ad canonicam formam adstricti, matrimonium attentarunt coram civili officiali aut ministro acatholico, necessarium requiratur processus documentalis de quo in can. 1686, an sufficiat investigatio praematrimonialis ad normam cann. 1066-1067.
R. Negative ad primum; Affirmative ad secundum.” (Sorry, don’t have the English. But, as you can probably see, it says the documentary process is not required–only the usual prematrimonial investigation can suffice in determining the free state of these people.)

Documentary cases are a different subject. These are trials, they require a judge, a defender, a citation of the respondent, and a sentence. They do not, however, require an appeal. For further information, see: c. 1686-1688; and Dignitas connubii, nos. 295-299.

You may notice that the documentary process can be used when there is a question of a “defect of form.” This is not the same as a “lack of form,” which is what we are discussing in this thread. In a defect of form, it seemed like canonical form was observed but, for example, the priest did not have the faculty to assist. In a lack of form, there wasn’t any attempt to observe canonical form.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello,

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.

Dan

Dan,

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

 

[Warrior1979]

If there is no possibility whatsoever that the situation can be a marriage (like 2 men, or a man marrying a toaster) then the subject matter is not even marriage at all.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Such a person is in a civil union–a relationship that does not even have the semblance of marriage in canon law.

Because you don’t state it and to me it’s not implicit, I need to ask: are you saying this applies only to those persons bound by the requirements of canonical form. I ask because, of course, the Church does recognise civil marriages between spouses who are not bound by canonical form.

 

[dans0622]

Because you don’t state it and to me it’s not implicit, I need to ask: are you saying this applies only to those persons bound by the requirements of canonical form. I ask because, of course, the Church does recognise civil marriages between spouses who are not bound by canonical form.

You are correct.

Dan