How can a 20-year marriage with 3 kids really be annulled?

[1ke]

The sacrament of marriage cannot be retroactively validated in this way, any more than someone who is in mortal sin can knowingly receive the Eucharist, later repent and confess their initial mortal sin (but not the sin of unworthily receiving the Eucharist) and have the later repentance of the other sin somehow undo the wrongfulness of their reception whilst in a state of sin.

Yes, the couple can in fact convalidate their marriage if the impediment ceases or invalidating factor is not in the public forum. And, moreover, they should do so, should they become aware of such a defect such as consent.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM

Remember many converts are required to convalidate their marriages - it is not assumed that their conversion to Catholicism retroactively renders their marriage sacramental.

This is not correct!!!

Two non-Catholics marry validly when they marry. If both are baptized it is also a sacrament. If one or both are unbaptized it is a valid natural marriage. When one or both becomes Catholic, their marriage is 100% valid. If at the time of conversion both become baptized the marriage automatically becomes a sacrament in addition to being a valid marriage. If only one converts and the other remains unbaptized, the marriage is a valid natural marriage.

The only reason a convert would require a convalidation would be that their spouse was a Catholic at the time of the marriage and did not marry in canonical form, or one or both had a prior bond situation that was resolved through the tribunal. In those cases, yes, they would have to give new consent in canonical form.

The OP’s situation fits neither criteria. Both were non-Catholics at the time of marriage and they did not have prior bonds. Their marriag is valid.

 

[1ke]

So a couple who marry in front of a judge are not going to be asked to have their marriage blessed by the Church if they convert?

Correct. It is 100% VALID.

 

[LilyM]

Correct. It is 100% VALID.

Not the same thing as sacramental, and a marriage needs to be both surely - otherwise why bother asking anyone to have a Church wedding? Not to mention that, say, a second or third marriage in front of a JP would not even be presumed to bevalid if there is a living previous spouse.

 

[1ke]

Not the same thing as sacramental, and a marriage needs to be both surely.

Validity and sacramentality are two different things.

• If both are baptized, then yes it is a valid sacramental marriage.
• If one or both are unbaptized it is a valid natural marriage.

Marriage is a sacrament by virtue of the baptism of the parties, not the location of the marriage or who witnesses it. If it is a valid marriage, it is a sacrament between the baptized by its very nature. So, yes, two non-Catholics who are baptized and get married at the JP are in a valid, sacramental marriage.

Can.* 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

 

[1ke]

Not the same thing as sacramental, and a marriage needs to be both surely - otherwise why bother asking anyone to have a Church wedding?

Form is a requirement that Church requires for validity for its members.

The Church makes no such requirement for those not bound by canon law.

Not to mention that, say, a second or third marriage in front of a JP would not even be presumed to bevalid if there is a living previous spouse.

Please stop adding extraneous items to the situation. NO ONE has stated that a prior bond situation produces a valid mariage. We are talking about two people who are free to marry.

 

[Gorgias]

Correct. It is 100% VALID.

1ke:

The OP’s situation fits neither criteria. Both were non-Catholics at the time of marriage and they did not have prior bonds. Their marriag is valid.

1ke,

I hear what you’re saying, and it’s sound. However, I just wanted to confirm that what you mean by “100%” is “given the information that we have, and presuming that there’s no other relevant considerations out there that we don’t know about, it’s valid”. And, of course, this hinges on the principle that marriage enjoys the favor of the law – if it appears to be valid, then unless and until a proper judicial process might find to the contrary, we say that it is valid.

Fair enough?

 

[LilyM]

Form is a requirement that Church requires for validity for its members.

The Church makes no such requirement for those not bound by canon law.

And a convert is surely one who takes on all the same obligations (including obligations under Canon Law and Catholic theology on the necessity of the sacraments for all Catholics) that cradle Catholics have. Which would include being bound to solemnise their marriage sacramentally, if it was not previously solemnised in a form the Church would accept for cradle Catholics, no?

 

[1ke]

And a convert is surely one who takes on all the same obligations (including obligations under Canon Law and Catholic theology on the necessity of the sacraments for all Catholics) that cradle Catholics have. Which would include being bound to solemnise their marriage sacramentally, if it was not previously solemnised in a form the Church would accept for cradle Catholics, no?

No.

It is a sacrament between the baptized from the first moment two baptized people enter a valid marriage. If they later become Catholic, the Church cannot in any way make it more of a sacrament than it already is.

If one of the parties is unbaptized and remains unbaptized after the other party converts, it is a valid natural marriage and the Church cannot make it more valid.

If one or both are unbaptized and become baptized by converting, it is their baptism that makes their marriage now a sacrament. The Church cannot make it more valid or more sacramental.

Convalidation is only for making an invalid marriage valid.

 

[LilyM]

No.

It is a sacrament between the baptized from the first moment two baptized people enter a valid marriage. If they later become Catholic, the Church cannot in any way make it more of a sacrament than it already is.

If one of the parties is unbaptized and remains unbaptized after the other party converts, it is a valid natural marriage and the Church cannot make it more valid.

If one or both are unbaptized and become baptized by converting, it is their baptism that makes their marriage now a sacrament. The Church cannot make it more valid or more sacramental.

Convalidation is only for making an invalid marriage valid.

I accept that convalidation is the wrong term - it’s not the term I’m worried about but the implication that a marriage that has not been ratified and blessed before almighty God doesn’t need such ratification or blessing, whatever term may be used.

To say a marital relationship that is not sacramental cannot be made so seems totally illogical.

Is it not the essence of marriage that an existing but non-sacramental relationship is rendered sacramental? How can this be if nothing in the Christian rites of marriage can change that bond between the Catholic couple - a bond which obviously exists well prior to their wedding day.

 

[ValPal]

To say a marital relationship that is not sacramental cannot be made so seems totally illogical.

A valid (natural) marriage that is not sacramental simply means that one or more of the spouses is not baptized. Once both spouses are baptized, the marriage becomes sacramental. No other action needs to be taken regarding the marriage.

If the marriage is invalid “sacramental” is moot, since there is no marriage or sacrament. The couple would have to convalidate their marriage, which is basically means the (civilly married) couple is being married for the first time.

 

[1ke]

To say a marital relationship that is not sacramental cannot be made so seems totally illogical.

If both parties are validly baptized, the marriage is automatically a sacrament. No one “makes” the marriage sacramental, including the Church.

If one or both parties are not baptized, the marriage is not and cannot be a sacrament. Baptism is the gateway to all other sacraments. Upon baptism of both parties the natural marriage becomes a sacrament. There is no action on the part of the Church.

Is it not the essence of marriage that an existing but non-sacramental relationship is rendered sacramental? How can this be if nothing in the Christian rites of marriage can change that bond between the Catholic couple - a bond which obviously exists well prior to their wedding day.

Huh?

 

[1ke]

Validity is a function of these things: intent, consent, and freedom from impediments.

Sacramentality is a function of baptism.

A valid marriage must exist before it can be a sacrament. If it is a valid marriage and both parties are baptized, it is automatically a sacrament. If one or more of the parties are unbaptized, the marriage is still valid but it is not a sacrament.

 

[Burdensome1]

My husband and I may be getting a divorce, although that is not the real purpose of this post and I would prefer not to go into it.

However, I had a question: if we divorce, we could seek an annulment and would probably be granted one because we were very young when we got married (though not pregnant at the time of the wedding, fortunately) and we were not Catholic when we got married.

What I’m wondering is, how can you really annul a 20-year marriage, in which 3 beautiful children were produced? It just seems ridiculous to say that it was never valid, and it concerns me that saying the marriage was never valid would be even more hurtful to the kids, who would already have plenty of pain to deal with.

Can anyone explain it?

Many people here are explaining it. The validity of a marriage does not turn on how long it has been since the wedding nor how fertile the couple is.

My neighbors are not married (except under common law) but they have been together for 10 years and have three kids. They need no annulment investigation if they ever split up.

See?

 

[3xblessed]

Many people here are explaining it. The validity of a marriage does not turn on how long it has been since the wedding nor how fertile the couple is.

My neighbors are not married (except under common law) but they have been together for 10 years and have three kids. They need no annulment investigation if they ever split up.

See?

Others have explained it a bit better although I am still somewhat confused, but your definition does not make sense or apply to me because I was, in fact, actually married. Not common law, but actually took vows.

I would like to know if there is anything in the Bible that says the tribunal can nullify a marriage, though, or if this is a teaching found only in the Catechism.

 

[Burdensome1]

I’m making an example. My neighbors have been together a long time, and have kids. Does that say anything in particular about them? No. The details still matter, even if you have been together a long time and have kids.

I am addressing your original posted question.

 

[Burdensome1]

I

would like to know if there is anything in the Bible that says the tribunal can nullify a marriage, though, or if this is a teaching found only in the Catechism.

Christ, as recorded in scripture, granted the Church the power to make law, and bind and loose its members in general. This applies to all sorts of things, not just investigating marriages.

Note that it is real because Christ did it. It is not specifically true because scripture records it. Scripture is accurate reporting, but if a newspaper reports on what went on in Washington yesterday, it is not the newspaper report that makes it true. Fine distinction, but necessary, since it is the Church that has authority over us (and our marriages).

 

[1ke]

Others have explained it a bit better although I am still somewhat confused, but your definition does not make sense or apply to me because I was, in fact, actually married. Not common law, but actually took vows.

I would like to know if there is anything in the Bible that says the tribunal can nullify a marriage, though, or if this is a teaching found only in the Catechism.

Yes. We see it in several places. First of course, Jesus gives the Church the power to bind and loose (Mt 16:15-20 and Mt 18:18)

St. Paul already in 1 Corinthians 7 makes a distinction of certain marriages that may be dissolved dealing with unbelievers (i.e. natural marriages).

Jesus (Mt 19:19) too makes the distinction of unlawful marriages (porneia) which indicates an invalid marriage due to the impediment of close kinship (see 1 Corinithians 5:1 describes marriage between a man and his stepmother using the Greek word porneia). This is often translated improperly as “unchastity” but it in fact means “invalid” or “unlawful”.

And, very early in the Church we already see the distinction between valid and invalid marriages (see for example the canons of the Council of Elvira). However, you have again used the term “nullify” and that is not what the Church does. The Church makes a finding of fact as to whether or not the marriage is valid or invalid. It cannot make null that which is valid.

 

[davidv]

Others have explained it a bit better although I am still somewhat confused, but your definition does not make sense or apply to me because I was, in fact, actually married. Not common law, but actually took vows.

I would like to know if there is anything in the Bible that says the tribunal can nullify a marriage, though, or if this is a teaching found only in the Catechism.

It is my understanding that based on Jesus’ teaching on the permanance of marriage, and constant Church teaching that the tribunal cannot nullify a marriage. What it can do is assess whether the proper intent, consent and freedom of the couple at the time of the wedding were present. If intent, consent and freedom were, the couple is in a valid marriage, if not, they are not validly married, even if they acted like they were.

 

[Godfollower]

Others have explained it a bit better although I am still somewhat confused, but your definition does not make sense or apply to me because I was, in fact, actually married. Not common law, but actually took vows.

I would like to know if there is anything in the Bible that says the tribunal can nullify a marriage, though, or if this is a teaching found only in the Catechism.

I hesitate to jump in where 1ke is doing such a good job explaining Church doctrine, but perhaps this example will help.

Suppose hypothetically that it turned out that your husband had actually married someone else before marrying you. The Church tribunal has the authority to investigate the situation and then, based on the fact that he was already validly married to someone else, issue a decree that, in the eyes of the Church, you were not validly married to him because of the bigamy prohibition – even though you sincerely thought that you had married him validly, and every single person there at the time thought so, too.

But the tribunal isn’t “nullifying” your marriage; it’s issuing a decree that, as far as the Church is concerned, your marriage did not validly take place – just like state courts sometimes do where the couple forgot to apply for a marriage license prior to the ceremony (or where it turns out that one party was already married, or under duress, or incompetent, or what have you).

Now, if there aren’t any grounds for finding that your wedding wasn’t valid, then the tribunal would refuse to issue a decree of nullity – which would mean that, in the eyes of the Church, you’re married. And everything that logically follows from being married would apply to you.

Does that help?

 

[Theflipside]

Annulment means your marriage never took place in god’s eyes.

Of course, in your case, this leaves behind three bastard children to be rejected by the church, so it’s really your choice.