Help me clarify this marriage question

[twk001]

Okay here goes-try to keep up My cousin was married about 20 yrs ago outside of the church. they never had their marriage blessed. they got divorced about 4 years ago. Now…this same cousin has met another man. they have unfortunately had a baby outside of wedlock. they have decided to get married. his first marriage WAS in a Catholic church in the presence of a priest. They are arguing with me about a few points: first off, I say that she doesn’t need an anulment because her marriage was never considered valid in the first place. second, I THINK that they can still get married in the church, just without mass???even if he doesn’t obtain anulment??? please help me clarify. obviously, neither are really practicing Catholics but I want to be able to know what I’m talking about. thanks-twk

 

[Cristiano]

1- Mass or not mass does not make any difference. Marriage in the Catholic Church is a Sacrament
2- If she is a Catholic and she was “married” outside the Church probably her marriage was not valid, but that has to be determined at the diocesan level. The initial presumption is that she is still married
3- If he was married in the Church and his marriage has not been annulled then he is still married to his wife and he is committing adultery with your cousin.
4-If his marriage was not valid to begin with (has been annulled) then he is free to marry.
5- If they want to live as Catholics then they should talk to a priest and regularize the situation. Regularization might imply marriage if both are deemed free to marry, or to interrupt the “spousal” relationship if the are not deemed free to marry.

 

[Chatter163]

Too many variables here, some of which were not addressed in original post. Are either of these parties baptized Catholics? Was the bride married before?

EVERY prior marriage, whether it took place in the Church or not, must be examined; there is no such thing as a marriage that is simply “ignored.” When a Catholic gets married outside the Church, that marriage is typically not subject to the lengthy annulment process, but is simply a “defect of form,” where baptismal certificate(s) establish that one or both parties was indeed Catholic, marriage certificate establishes that the marriage took place outside the Church, and a divorce decree establishes that the marriage is no longer in effect. This process typically takes thirty days or less. It will likely be what the bride faces, if she is a Catholic, due to her prior marriage. If she is not Catholic, then she will need a full-blown annulment.

However, since the groom here WAS married in a Catholic Church, then either he or his previous wife is Catholic, and the assumption remains that this marriage is still valid, until a marriage tribunal proves otherwise. This will probably involve the full-blown annulment process.

Neither party is free to marry until each of their former unions is dealt with. In the bride’s case this will probably be soon if she is Catholic, but in the groom’s case, not so much.

What, exactly, are they “arguing” with you? It sounds as if they are not only non-practicing, but one or both are possibly at odds with a proper understanding of sacramental Catholic marriage. Having a child out of wedlock at a not-so-very-young age hardly lends proof to any claims of understanding Catholic matrimony. It sounds as though the situation is completely out of your hands.

 

[puzzleannie]

too many variables to answer on this forum, they must see a priest about their entire situation, and be honest about all past marriages and relationships, and take his guidance.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Okay here goes-try to keep up My cousin was married about 20 yrs ago outside of the church. they never had their marriage blessed. they got divorced about 4 years ago. Now…this same cousin has met another man. they have unfortunately had a baby outside of wedlock. they have decided to get married. his first marriage WAS in a Catholic church in the presence of a priest. They are arguing with me about a few points: first off, I say that she doesn’t need an anulment because her marriage was never considered valid in the first place. second, I THINK that they can still get married in the church, just without mass???even if he doesn’t obtain anulment??? please help me clarify. obviously, neither are really practicing Catholics but I want to be able to know what I’m talking about. thanks-twk

She doesn’t need an annulment. she just has to have a letter from her Tribunal stating that her first attempt at Marriage was defective due to Form. (Not according to Catholic Law) since it was a public attempt at Marriage. He would need to have his first Marriage investigated, unless his first wife has died.

 

[THurifer2]

Okay here goes-try to keep up My cousin was married about 20 yrs ago outside of the church. they never had their marriage blessed.

Doesn’t mean it wasn’t a valid Marriage and a priest needs to be told about this.

Now…this same cousin has met another man. they have unfortunately had a baby outside of wedlock.

 

[Seatuck]

She doesn’t need an annulment. she just has to have a letter from her Tribunal stating that her first attempt at Marriage was defective due to Form. (Not according to Catholic Law) since it was a public attempt at Marriage. He would need to have his first Marriage investigated, unless his first wife has died.

Isn’t the first case still an “annulment”? Just a simpler documentary case.

 

[Brother_John]

EVERY prior marriage, whether it took place in the Church or not, must be examined; there is no such thing as a marriage that is simply “ignored.”

Another one of those delightful “contradictions” of our Church.

They don’t “recognize” a prior marriage outside the Church, yet it has to go through “process” before said person can be married in the Church to another spouse.

Yah, I know I’ll get flogged again, just like I do on the celibacy issue…

 

[BeeSweet]

Okay here goes-try to keep up My cousin was married about 20 yrs ago outside of the church. they never had their marriage blessed. they got divorced about 4 years ago. Now…this same cousin has met another man. they have unfortunately had a baby outside of wedlock. they have decided to get married. his first marriage WAS in a Catholic church in the presence of a priest. They are arguing with me about a few points: first off, I say that she doesn’t need an anulment because her marriage was never considered valid in the first place. second, I THINK that they can still get married in the church, just without mass???even if he doesn’t obtain anulment??? please help me clarify. obviously, neither are really practicing Catholics but I want to be able to know what I’m talking about. thanks-twk

Both will need to go through the formal annulment process. It’s not your place to explain why, they need to contact a priest.

Simply put, when a catholic marries outside the church and later has their marriage blessed, they are not getting married again, they are having their marriage witnessed in the church. They are really married the first time, they just need to have the marriage validated in the church. That’s why even a non-catholic marriage would need to be annulled before any other subsequent marriage takes place.

They really need to get in touch with their priest to go over their specific situation. Please encourage them to do so.

 

[THurifer2]

Yah, I know I’ll get flogged again, just like I do on the celibacy issue…

The Lutheran Pastor in our town recently quit his church because he said there is no way he can be a pastor and a good father at the same time. He is going to work in real estate until his kids are grown up and then return to being a pastor…

ALL this at a church that has only TWO 2 sacraments.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Another one of those delightful “contradictions” of our Church.

They don’t “recognize” a prior marriage outside the Church, yet it has to go through “process” before said person can be married in the Church to another spouse.

Yah, I know I’ll get flogged again, just like I do on the celibacy issue…

No flogging is advised for anyone. But there is a rationale for this based in the Church’s concern about marriage as a matter of divine institution subject to divine law, and in the case of Catholics, ecclesiastical law as well.

So I repeat in part, a post I made to another thread this morning.

Canon 1066 establishes the norm for anyone who wishes to marry in the Catholic Church, whether Catholic nor not, whether a cradle Catholic or a convert, whether baptized or not, whether married before or not. It says, “Before marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.”

**Consequently each and every prior marriage that either party has celebrated, whether civil or religious, whether in the Catholic Church or not, must be examined to establish the freedom of the person to marry in the Catholic Church. **

This is true because a valid marriage sets up an impediment of divine law that prevents any subsequent marriage if that person from being valid, except in the case of a pauline privilege or a privilege of the faith or a dispensation from a non consumated marriage. So before a second marriage takes place, we have to know that it is not prevented from being valid by a prior marriage. Again, this arises from respect for marriage which is given by the Creator and subject to his laws or the laws established by the authority given by his Son to the Church.

Since this will require technical expertise and the exercise of authority in the Church, this matter is always best brought to the parish priest. Most have received sufficient training in Church law to know when they must rely on or seek guidance from the diocesan bishop. This is normally provided by the staff of his tribunal. But some cases will throw the best trained priests a curve since their training is to be pastors and not specialists in canon law.

Posters with concrete questions about their real life situations should always take them to their parish priests.

 

[THurifer2]

Another one of those delightful “contradictions” of our Church.

They don’t “recognize” a prior marriage outside the Church, yet it has to go through “process” before said person can be married in the Church to another spouse.

Yah, I know I’ll get flogged again, just like I do on the celibacy issue…

Yeah shame on that nasty Church for being so thorough. After all we want want want want and we WANT IT NOW…silly Church… how dare they get in the way of our Wants.

 

[Chatter163]

She doesn’t need an annulment. she just has to have a letter from her Tribunal stating that her first attempt at Marriage was defective due to Form. (Not according to Catholic Law) since it was a public attempt at Marriage. He would need to have his first Marriage investigated, unless his first wife has died.

That is assuming that the bride is Catholic, which the original post does not indicate. If she is a non-Catholic who married another non-Catholic, then her prior marriage is assumed valid and would need a complete nullity process.

 

[Phemie]

That is assuming that the bride is Catholic, which the original post does not indicate. If she is a non-Catholic who married another non-Catholic, then her prior marriage is assumed valid and would need a complete nullity process.

The OP mentions at the end that “neither are really practicing Catholics” so I think we can assume both are baptized Catholic if not particularly interested in the faith.

 

[THurifer2]

“neither are really practicing Catholics” so.

WHich is good enough reason to deny them a Catholic Wedding.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Isn’t the first case still an “annulment”? Just a simpler documentary case.

Yes, my point was that she still needs documentation from the Tribunal, showing her free to Marry, since the attempt was of public record. A Documentary case most likely, not a full Annulment process.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

That is assuming that the bride is Catholic, which the original post does not indicate. If she is a non-Catholic who married another non-Catholic, then her prior marriage is assumed valid and would need a complete nullity process.

“neither are really practicing Catholics” It indicates that they are both Catholic the way I read it. Either way the person she would like to Marry is Catholic.

 

[Chatter163]

“neither are really practicing Catholics” It indicates that they are both Catholic the way I read it. Either way the person she would like to Marry is Catholic.

True, I must have missed that. Mea culpa.

 

[Phemie]

Yes, my point was that she still needs documentation from the Tribunal, showing her free to Marry, since the attempt was of public record. A Documentary case most likely, not a full Annulment process.

Again, depends on the diocese and the bishop. When it’s a clear case of lack of form not all dioceses go through the Tribunal – mine doesn’t.