Hypothetical annulment question

[PerfectTiming]

Assume all parties are Catholic.

Let’s sat A and B are married in the Church but divorce.
Neither seeks an annulment.
B then re-marries to C.
B and C also divorce but C seeks an annulment and gains it on the basis of the prior marriage between A and B.
A then seeks to annul the marriage of A and B and gains it.
What would happen then to the annulment of B and C’s marriage - can an annulment be rescinded? Or would the validity of A and B’s marriage have been investigated as part of the first annulment (B and C)? So is this situation even possible?

Sorry for the complicated nature of the question. My knowledge of annulments and the processes is very limited so there may be some very obvious answer.

 

[JRKH]

Interesting question…I’ll be interested in the answers to this one.

My question - from a practical standpoint - would be - would anyone think to even ask??

Peace
James

 

[Joe_5859]

B and C’s marriage was invalid because at the time of the wedding, A & B were still presumed to be married and thus were not free to be married in the church. Thus, whether A & B’s marriage is later found to be null is irrelevant.

To look at it another way, say B & C were still married and B got a declaration of nullity for the A & B marriage. B & C would still need to get their marriage convalidated because it wasn’t previously valid. It’s not as though the marriage vows get post-dated to their initial attempt at marriage simply because the first marriage was found to be null.

 

[Leegal]

Assume all parties are Catholic.

Let’s sat A and B are married in the Church but divorce.
Neither seeks an annulment.
B then re-marries to C.
B and C also divorce but C seeks an annulment and gains it on the basis of the prior marriage between A and B.
A then seeks to annul the marriage of A and B and gains it.
What would happen then to the annulment of B and C’s marriage - can an annulment be rescinded? Or would the validity of A and B’s marriage have been investigated as part of the first annulment (B and C)? So is this situation even possible?

Sorry for the complicated nature of the question. My knowledge of annulments and the processes is very limited so there may be some very obvious answer.

B and C’s marriage was anulled on the basis that a valid marriage existed at the time between A and B. There’s nothing to rescind.

The fact that A then seeks to annul the first marriage, subsequently, did not mean that an impediment did not exist at the time that B and C got married and C sought to annul that marriage.

The Church must have investigated and the first marriage was found to be legit, so C got her annulment on the basis that a prior valid marriage existed. Afterall, the Church was working with the facts at the time of the second marriage, between B and C, took place – not what they could not know would come in the future.

 

[SMHW]

B and C would not be able to marry in the Catholic form… So their marriage is going to be invalid for that reason alone.

 

[FrDavid96]

Assume all parties are Catholic.

Let’s sat A and B are married in the Church but divorce.
Neither seeks an annulment.
B then re-marries to C.
B and C also divorce but C seeks an annulment and gains it on the basis of the prior marriage between A and B.
A then seeks to annul the marriage of A and B and gains it.
What would happen then to the annulment of B and C’s marriage - can an annulment be rescinded? Or would the validity of A and B’s marriage have been investigated as part of the first annulment (B and C)? So is this situation even possible?

Sorry for the complicated nature of the question. My knowledge of annulments and the processes is very limited so there may be some very obvious answer.

The annulment of the B-C marriage would not be reversed.

Even if the A-B marriage was later determined to be an invalid attempt (your scenario), the point is that at the time B-C attempted marriage, B was still bound by the prior marriage (A-B). Therefore B could not validly attempt marriage at that time.

To your next question, the A-B marriage would be looked at as part of the petition to declare the B-C marriage invalid, but only very briefly (not much beyond looking at the marriage records to determine that a ceremony did indeed occur). The validity of the A-B marriage would not be investigated as such. It would be better to say that the “fact” of the AB marriage is investigated, not the “validity” of it.

To your last question, yes, the situation is possible.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Assume all parties are Catholic.

Let’s sat A and B are married in the Church but divorce.
Neither seeks an annulment.
B then re-marries to C.
B and C also divorce but C seeks an annulment and gains it on the basis of the prior marriage between A and B.
A then seeks to annul the marriage of A and B and gains it.
What would happen then to the annulment of B and C’s marriage - can an annulment be rescinded? Or would the validity of A and B’s marriage have been investigated as part of the first annulment (B and C)? So is this situation even possible?

Sorry for the complicated nature of the question. My knowledge of annulments and the processes is very limited so there may be some very obvious answer.

If B is Catholic then B would not have been able to marry C in the Church as required by canon law and thus the second marriage would never have been valid.

 

[FrDavid96]

If B is Catholic then B would not have been able to marry C in the Church as required by canon law and thus the second marriage would never have been valid.

True.

But that means that the B-C marriage can be declared null rather easily. The scenario itself is still possible, if the B-C marriage occurred outside the Church (which it necessarily would have, unless something went wrong with the pre-marriage investigation, which is not very likely).

So, would B-C be declared null based on “prior bond” or on “lack of form”? In the end it wouldn’t matter, although I think “prior bond” would be the better choice.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

So, would B-C be declared null based on “prior bond” or on “lack of form”? In the end it wouldn’t matter, although I think “prior bond” would be the better choice.

Lack of form would be the easiest option and the most pertinent. Prior bond I would think would only be used if two Protestants got married, but in those circumstances I think the Tribunal would start at the first marriage and work forwards…

 

[Phemie]

B and C’s marriage was anulled on the basis that a valid marriage existed at the time between A and B. There’s nothing to rescind.

The fact that A then seeks to annul the first marriage, subsequently, did not mean that an impediment did not exist at the time that B and C got married and C sought to annul that marriage.

The Church must have investigated and the first marriage was found to be legit, so C got her annulment on the basis that a prior valid marriage existed. Afterall, the Church was working with the facts at the time of the second marriage, between B and C, took place – not what they could not know would come in the future.

B & C’s marriage was invalid due to the impediment of an existing bond. Not to mention that they didn’t get married in the Church and there was no dispensation for lack of canonical form. There was no presumption of validity so there was no need for a decree of nullity.

 

[promethius]

If B is Catholic then B would not have been able to marry C in the Church as required by canon law and thus the second marriage would never have been valid.

And even if she had been able to (by some sort of paperwork error:shrug the marraige would still be invalid because SHE would know that she was previously married, and therefore SHE would know that she couldn’t, under church teaching, give rightful consent to another marraige…

 

[Leegal]

B & C’s marriage was invalid due to the impediment of an existing bond. Not to mention that they didn’t get married in the Church and there was no dispensation for lack of canonical form. There was no presumption of validity so there was no need for a decree of nullity.

You say there was no need, but obviously someone saw a need because C got an annulment.

Why did 1) C seek one and 2) why was it granted? I assume a Church annulment and C is Catholic, though it’s not specified.

If the Churich did not believe that a current marriage existed, they would have had no need to give C the annulment. They would have advised him/her to go to confession because he/she was not married at all – so, obviously the Church thought B and C had something to nullify.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

You say there was no need, but obviously someone saw a need because C got an annulment.

The OP states that his question is a hypothetical scenario. It didn’t actually happen.

 

[Phemie]

You say there was no need, but obviously someone saw a need because C got an annulment.

Why did 1) C seek one and 2) why was it granted? I assume a Church annulment and C is Catholic, though it’s not specified.

If the Churich did not believe that a current marriage existed, they would have had no need to give C the annulment. They would have advised him/her to go to confession because he/she was not married at all – so, obviously the Church thought B and C had something to nullify.

Did you miss the ‘hypothetical’ in the title?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Can I throw another hypothetical in here?

Suppose A and B, both non-Catholics, marry and then divorce.

A goes on to marry C, another non-Catholic and they divorce.

A then marries D. Now A wants to become Catholic.

A Tribunal will need to investigate the marriage between A and B. Let’s say they find the marriage invalid.

Is there also a need to investigate the marriage between A and C? Or is that one automatically invalid since A was not free to marry? Can A and D move to convalidate their marriage? Leaving aside the pastoral issues involved, what is the legal status of things?

 

[Batfink]

And even if she had been able to (by some sort of paperwork error:shrug the marraige would still be invalid because SHE would know that she was previously married, and therefore SHE would know that she couldn’t, under church teaching, give rightful consent to another marraige…

You’d think that, wouldn’t you? However, you’d be surprised at the number of Catholics out there who don’t understand Church teaching and think that their divorce, for want of a better term, ‘works’ in the Catholic Church. Being a baptised Catholic who married in the Church doesn’t automatically equate to being properly catechised and educated in the faith. I would be amazed if there were not divorced Catholics in the world who consider themselves free to marry again, and not just out of willfulness/disobedience, but because they don’t know what marriage is.

 

[SMHW]

Can I throw another hypothetical in here?

Suppose A and B, both non-Catholics, marry and then divorce.

A goes on to marry C, another non-Catholic and they divorce.

A then marries D. Now A wants to become Catholic.

A Tribunal will need to investigate the marriage between A and B. Let’s say they find the marriage invalid.

Is there also a need to investigate the marriage between A and C? Or is that one automatically invalid since A was not free to marry? Can A and D move to convalidate their marriage? Leaving aside the pastoral issues involved, what is the legal status of things?

I have just glanced at your scenario.

But since all the parties are non-Catholic I’m going to say that things are a lot more complicated. So much so that you really ought to start a new thread…

 

[agapewolf]

Can I throw another hypothetical in here?

Suppose A and B, both non-Catholics, marry and then divorce.

A goes on to marry C, another non-Catholic and they divorce.

A then marries D. Now A wants to become Catholic.

A Tribunal will need to investigate the marriage between A and B. Let’s say they find the marriage invalid.

Is there also a need to investigate the marriage between A and C? Or is that one automatically invalid since A was not free to marry? Can A and D move to convalidate their marriage? Leaving aside the pastoral issues involved, what is the legal status of things?

I am very interested in this answer, I was going to pose the same question.

 

[Leegal]

Did you miss the ‘hypothetical’ in the title?

Hypothetically, the Church saw something to invalidate between B and C.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

And even if she had been able to (by some sort of paperwork error:shrug the marraige would still be invalid because SHE would know that she was previously married, and therefore SHE would know that she couldn’t, under church teaching, give rightful consent to another marraige…

Either that or he would have had to hide that fact from her which would make the marriage invalid due to deception…