Find out later...ex never baptised

[DiscerningDave]

Quick question, and I need factual information either from being in this situation or from church doctrine knowledge.

Does one have to go through the formal process of anullment (applying, advocate, writing the 50 page disertation) if one finds out that their ex-wife did not tell the truth and was never baptised in any christian faith? What would be the procedure used?

Thanks

 

[bear06]

Quick question, and I need factual information either from being in this situation or from church doctrine knowledge.

Does one have to go through the formal process of anullment (applying, advocate, writing the 50 page disertation) if one finds out that their ex-wife did not tell the truth and was never baptised in any christian faith? What would be the procedure used?

Thanks

Contact your marriage tribunal. They are the ones that can tell you for sure what process you’d need to follow. I’m pretty sure that if your wife will admit she lied in the process that you’d probably find it fairly easy to obtain an annullment.

 

[TimOliv]

Quick question, and I need factual information either from being in this situation or from church doctrine knowledge.

Does one have to go through the formal process of anullment (applying, advocate, writing the 50 page disertation) if one finds out that their ex-wife did not tell the truth and was never baptised in any christian faith? What would be the procedure used?

Thanks

This very same issue came up when my step-father wished to marry my mother. He was married to a Catholic women, in the church, but she simply made up a baptismal date for him and said he was Catholic.

Years later, he divorces and wishes to marry my mother.

He was still required to follow the same anullment process.

If he didn’t, then people who wanted anullments would just say the other party was never baptized…

 

[DiscerningDave]

This very same issue came up when my step-father wished to marry my mother. He was married to a Catholic women, in the church, but she simply made up a baptismal date for him and said he was Catholic.

Years later, he divorces and wishes to marry my mother.

He was still required to follow the same anullment process.

If he didn’t, then people who wanted anullments would just say the other party was never baptized…

I see your point. I plan on following the same procedural process, but she is sending me a notarized statement that she and her mother are signing saying she was never baptised. One would think since the sacrament of marriage never existed, the marriage does not need to be anulled, because technically, there was never the sacrament of marriage.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Quick question, and I need factual information either from being in this situation or from church doctrine knowledge.

Does one have to go through the formal process of anullment (applying, advocate, writing the 50 page disertation) if one finds out that their ex-wife did not tell the truth and was never baptised in any christian faith? What would be the procedure used?

Thanks

Yes an annulment process of some kind would need to be followed starting with your pastor who should collect all the documentation and proof needed to show he lied. It is part of the “public” record of the Church that they were Baptized. It needs also to be prat of the public record that they lied about this and that this constituted sufficient reason to render the Marriage invalid. Canon Law says that all Marriages are presumed valid until PROVEN otherwise.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Well, Dave,

I work with marriage cases at a tribunal. Perhaps this will help.

Bear06 gave you the absolutely correct answer: the tribunal will indicate how to proceed. I can only add a fuller picture of the concept.

A Catholic cannot validly marry a non baptized party without a dispensation from disparity of cult (c. 1085).

If a non baptized party concealed the fact of non baptism, it is possible that no dispensation was sought. Sometimes though, the dispensation is sought anyway as a caution (ad cautelem).
The prenuptial records and the chancery archives will be examined to clarify whether it was given or not.

If there was no dispensation and it was needed, there is still a tribunal process, called the documentary process of canon 1686: “When a petition has been received in accord with can. 1677, the judicial vicar or a judge designated by him, omitting the formalities of the ordinary process but having cited the parties and with the intervention of the defender of the bond, can declare the nullity of a marriage by a sentence, if from a document which is subject to no contradiction or exception there is certain proof of the existence of a diriment impediment or a defect of legitimate form, provided that it is clear with equal certitude that a dispensation was not granted; this can also be done if there is certain proof of the defect of a valid mandate of proxy.”

However, it is a much simpler process and although it is a nullity of marriage case, some things are different. Usually it does not involve the writing of testimony, since the proof of nullity is established by documents. Witnesses are not cited as a rule. The case does not have to wait for publication of the acts.

This process does not require mandatory review by a second tribunal, and as a defender of the bond, I do not recall ever having to appeal one of these cases, nor of a responding party ever making appeal.

As a matter of information, if prenuptial proof of baptism could not be obtained with certainty by a document or witnesses other than a prospective bride or groom, it would be customary in most places, to have sought the dispensation ad cautelam.

If this were done, then the full process would need to be followed.

But, only your tribunal knows…

 

[Cristiano]

One would think since the sacrament of marriage never existed, the marriage does not need to be anulled, because technically, there was never the sacrament of marriage.

I think that you are confused about the annulment of marriage concept. The marriage (the formality of the process) can never be annulled if there was the sacrament of marriage at the beginning. The marriage (the formality of the process) can be annulled only if there was not a sacrament of marriage to start with.

If a marriage (just the formality of the process) does exist a person is still considered married whatever or not the sacrament of marriage was present at the tme of the cerimony. Annulment is a procedural necessity to formally recognize that the marriage (the formality of the process) was not valid.

 

[DiscerningDave]

Well, Dave,

I work with marriage cases at a tribunal. Perhaps this will help.

Bear06 gave you the absolutely correct answer: the tribunal will indicate how to proceed. I can only add a fuller picture of the concept.

A Catholic cannot validly marry a non baptized party without a dispensation from disparity of cult (c. 1085).

If a non baptized party concealed the fact of non baptism, it is possible that no dispensation was sought. Sometimes though, the dispensation is sought anyway as a caution (ad cautelem).
The prenuptial records and the chancery archives will be examined to clarify whether it was given or not.

If there was no dispensation and it was needed, there is still a tribunal process, called the documentary process of canon 1686: “When a petition has been received in accord with can. 1677, the judicial vicar or a judge designated by him, omitting the formalities of the ordinary process but having cited the parties and with the intervention of the defender of the bond, can declare the nullity of a marriage by a sentence, if from a document which is subject to no contradiction or exception there is certain proof of the existence of a diriment impediment or a defect of legitimate form, provided that it is clear with equal certitude that a dispensation was not granted; this can also be done if there is certain proof of the defect of a valid mandate of proxy.”

However, it is a much simpler process and although it is a nullity of marriage case, some things are different. Usually it does not involve the writing of testimony, since the proof of nullity is established by documents. Witnesses are not cited as a rule. The case does not have to wait for publication of the acts.

This process does not require mandatory review by a second tribunal, and as a defender of the bond, I do not recall ever having to appeal one of these cases, nor of a responding party ever making appeal.

As a matter of information, if prenuptial proof of baptism could not be obtained with certainty by a document or witnesses other than a prospective bride or groom, it would be customary in most places, to have sought the dispensation ad cautelam.

If this were done, then the full process would need to be followed.

But, only your tribunal knows…

Wow, thank you for that wonderful information. When we wre married, she never produced the document of batism. She just put on the form, baptized protestant. It was never questioned, by me or anyone else. I do not hold her at fault for this. She knew how important it was for me to be married inthe church, so she lied for me, without my knowledge. We are still friends today and the main reason we got divorced was that we were on two different paths in life. I also found out, on the instrument we took, we scored a 36 out of 100 when it came to religion and philosophy. She started heading in that new age path trying to take me with her. It was never going to happen.
My advocate is our transitional deacon in our parish. I was just appointed him and we have yet to meet and discuss this. I just like to get all my ducks in a row before the meeting

Thanks for all the help.

 

[bear06]

I see your point. I plan on following the same procedural process, but she is sending me a notarized statement that she and her mother are signing saying she was never baptised. One would think since the sacrament of marriage never existed, the marriage does not need to be anulled, because technically, there was never the sacrament of marriage.

Just a little note which is more for fun here because I think Cameron and Br. Rich covered it. Correct me if I’m wrong but a marriage isn’t necessarily invalid if it isn’t a sacramental marriage (of course because of the lie told in this one it would seem probable that there would be an issue with consent and with a dispensation). A marriage can be valid yet not sacramental if proper procedure is followed, no? Bascially a marriage between a non-Baptized person and a Catholic, given the dispensation and all other things valid, is not a sacramental marriage but a valid marriage.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Just a little note which is more for fun here because I think Cameron and Br. Rich covered it. Correct me if I’m wrong but a marriage isn’t necessarily invalid if it isn’t a sacramental marriage (of course because of the lie told in this one it would seem probable that there would be an issue with consent and with a dispensation). A marriage can be valid yet not sacramental if proper procedure is followed, no? Bascially a marriage between a non-Baptized person and a Catholic, given the dispensation and all other things valid, is not a sacramental marriage but a valid marriage.

Yes

 

[DiscerningDave]

Just a little note which is more for fun here because I think Cameron and Br. Rich covered it. Correct me if I’m wrong but a marriage isn’t necessarily invalid if it isn’t a sacramental marriage (of course because of the lie told in this one it would seem probable that there would be an issue with consent and with a dispensation). A marriage can be valid yet not sacramental if proper procedure is followed, no? Bascially a marriage between a non-Baptized person and a Catholic, given the dispensation and all other things valid, is not a sacramental marriage but a valid marriage.

By using the word “valid”, what do you mean? I am not sure I am following you on the valid vs. sacramental.

It was a legally binding marriage that was granted a divorce by the courts. However, if one is under the impression that it was sacramental, then later finds out, due to a deception, it is not… Should not this marriage ever existed sacramentally in the eyes of the church? Obviously, this will be up to the tribunal, but I am curious what others think.
David

 

[batteddy]

You’ll still have to talk to the tribunal, but it sounds like it will be a MUCH faster process than in cases where everything at the time was externally fine and they have to investigate the inner psychological states of the people and stuff.

 

[bear06]

By using the word “valid”, what do you mean? I am not sure I am following you on the valid vs. sacramental.

It was a legally binding marriage that was granted a divorce by the courts. However, if one is under the impression that it was sacramental, then later finds out, due to a deception, it is not… Should not this marriage ever existed sacramentally in the eyes of the church? Obviously, this will be up to the tribunal, but I am curious what others think.
David

Hey, I did give a disclaimer. I said that your situation was different. I was just mulling over the fact that non-sacramental marriages can be valid marriages in the eyes of the Church (with dispensation, of course). Even with a dispensation from the Church, a marriage between a baptized Catholic and a non-baptized individual is not a sacramental marriag although it would still be a valud marriage. There is a difference between a valid and sacramental marriage and a marriage tha is still valid in the eyes of the Church.