P
Phemie
Guest
The Church doesn’t invalidate anything.
- Status
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
A and C then need an annulment. Exchanged vows are presumed valid unless there is a way to show they are not. A and C’s marriage could only be invalid if there was a prior bond, so if the tribunal shows that A and B was not a marriage bond that means there was nothing to prevent A and C’s vows from being valid.
Of course, then there’s the whole issue of whether or not any of the parties were baptized…
The problem is that there are very specific details to each case that determine the course of action. Hypotheticals can be fun but in the end there’s always too much detail to give a simple answer…
L
Leegal
Guest
Secularly A and D are married. Once A decides to become a Catholic, he/she cannot convalidate the marriage to D without clearing up both prior marriages. You say that the Church then finds the A:B marriage to be invalid. They would go on to investigate the circumstances of the A:C marriage. There might be different circumstances involved.
An example. A Catholic woman marries against the advice of a priest to an Episcopalian in an Episcopal Church and gets a civil annulment. A Catholic annulment would be required too because the marriage took place in an Episcopal Church between Baptised persons.
Another Catholic does the same thing, but gets married in a civil ceremony. That “marriage” only requires a confession because there was no marriage.
So, once the Church declares that there was no marriage between A:B, the circumstances of the A:C marriage would be a separate issue because it depends on whether the ceremony was a religious one or not, whether they were Baptised (one or both in another Christian faith) regardless of the fact that A was not Catholic at the time but because he/she wants to become a Catholic now and is now married to D according to civil law.
You say A was not free to marry, yet the Church found the A:B marriage to be invalid. That’s a contradiction. If the A:B marriage was later found to be invalid by a Tribunal, then A may very well have entered into a legitimate marriage with C and that would have to be taken up separately.
But the point is…
The tribunal ruling for this “marriage” between B and C would be that it was presumed invalid. There never would have been the kind of full blown invetigation that was needed for the marriage between A and B.
Since the scenario here is that all parties are Catholic, there would be clear records to note that B was not free to marry and that B and C were NOT married according to the Catholic form.
If you are going to allow for the possibility of huge administrative breakdowns then this becomes more a conspiracy/catastrophe story than a discussion of annulments.
L
Leegal
Guest
The question is simple. Can the B:C nullification be reversed or rescinded when that nullification takes place before the nullification of the A:B marriage?
I say it has nothing to do with the fact that the latter marriage was invalidated before the first. Since this is all hypothetical, the Church annulled the B:C marriage based on whatever. Maybe hypothetically B lied and never told C he was married before. Who knows the reasons because the specifics do not matter to us – only the Church. If the Church rules that the A:C marriage is null – it is null. What happens now with the A:B marriage being declared null and void will not rescind the earlier A:C nullification and make them married again. The fact that A took so long to seek an annulment and C beats A to null that marriage first would not place C back in the same position as being automatically married to B again. Otherwise, the Church could never act on any current nullification and no one would feel safe that the marriage was really annulled, if there was another prior marriage. In other words, the Church would have to force the nullifications to be done in order. While the earlier are considerations as to validity, the C person could not have forced the A person to get an annulment first.
P
Phemie
Guest
Wait, she married in an Episcopal Church without a dispensation from form? No different from marrying in the judge’s chambers as far as the Church is concerned, regardless of whom she married.
In my diocese under the last bishop that wouldn’t even have been submitted to the Tribunal, the priest would have just recorded that the the civil marriage had occured, (because without a dispensation from form that’s all it was, a civil marriage) that a divorce had been granted and that, along with a recent baptismal certificate that didn’t have a notation of a marriage, would show freedom to marry.
L
Leegal
Guest
Yes. The Catholic priest refused to marry them and they went ahead to marry in the Episcopal Church against the priest’s advice. The marriage broke down and a civil annulment was obtained. This is not hypothetical. This is true.
In the second case, another couple (also true) got a civil ceremony and civil annulment. That required only a confession on the part of the Catholic party.
B and C were Catholic. They could not have been married according to the Catholic form because B was supposedly already married. They could not have obtained a dispensation to marry outside of Catholic form. Therefore their marriage was invalid. If unknown to B, A had dropped dead five minutes before B and C exchanged vows, the "marriage between B and C would still be invalid.
P
Phemie
Guest
They got a civil annulment?
In a case like that, although it might be submitted to the Tribunal, it’s just paperwork.
Petitioning for a declaration of nullity means a very involved process with witnesses, long history to fill out, arguments back and forth between the defender of the bond and the person arguing for a finding of nullity, etc.
In the case you talk about here, and I can only presume that since the priest refused to marry them he didn’t petition the bishop for a dispensation from canonical form on their behalf, she would have only had to present her certificate of baptism, the marriage record that showed where the marriage was celebrated and who the officiant was and the divorce decree. A notice of freedom to marry would come back in short order. There wouldn’t have to be a full-blown judicial process.
L
Leegal
Guest
I know the B:C marriage is invalid because the C person obtained some nullification. The actual reason does not matter if the question is that the A person acted only after C got a declaration of nullity. It would not rescind the decision on C’s marriage to B. The question is could that rescind a declaration of nullity or even a declaration that no marriage took place? I say no – the events are separate.
L
Leegal
Guest
We’ll see – maybe. The priest died soon after – he was very ill and it was unknown that he was dying. There would be no record of the meeting due to the amount of time that has passed. The only witness would be the ex-spouse who would not cooperate, if he could be found. There’s only the woman’s word that the priest refused to marry them at all. But they did marry in the Episcopal Church. There was no divorce. A civil annulment was granted based upon “fraud in the inducement”, which he would deny if he decided to answer at all.
I believe they are separate. What I don’t know is whether or not B and C can actually obtain a ruling of nullity since there was no putative marriage in the first place. I am unclear on what ruling they do obtain.
P
Phemie
Guest
Let’s put it this way, if A had died and B&C married outside the Church, although most dioceses would send the information to the Tribunal, it’s not absolutely necessary.
Should B&C divorce and B want to marry in the Catholic Church, in our diocese it would only require that B produce a recent baptismal certificate showing no marriage to C, a death certificate for A, and a marriage registration & divorce decree for her marriage to C, for her to get married in the Church. The priest would deal with it and not the Tribunal.
As I understand it, in Europe it would be the same, as long as a divorce decree existed and there was no record of marriage in the Baptism register, she would be free to marry.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Without the dispensation from canonical form the marriage in the Episcopal church would be invalid.
Yes and no. While its merely a paperwork issue, the Catholic party would still need a declaration of nullity on the grounds of lack of canonical form in order to be free to marry in the Church.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
Your time scale is impossible to follow, but as each party A, B, C, X whoever approaches the canon law tribunal to determine if they are free to marry today,
the annulment investigation looks first at the facts surrounding the earliest marriage. If it determines it was invalid, it looks at the next marriage and so forth. So any marriage of any of the parties will be investigated in due course. No a decree of nullity cannot be rescinded based on what one of the parties does subsequently, but only on appeal in the proper channels. The annulment does not make something valid or invalid, it rules on the facts that pertained at the time of the contract, and whether valid consent was exchanged at that time. Those findings of fact are not going to change based on what one of the parties does in the meantime. The only thing that might change is that subsequent investigation reveals facts that were not available to the tribunal at the time of the judgment, and appeals are sometimes made on this basis.
you insist on stating the example in these terms but you have been corrected several times, your language is inaccurate, the tribunal does not invalidate anything, it makes a ruling after an investigation that declares whether or not the contract was valid at the time of its inception.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello PerfectTiming,
Others have pointed out the problem with everyone in the scenario being Catholic. However, your question is a good one–if a prior bond is used as grounds to declare a marriage invalid but then that prior bond is declared to have never existed, there is a problem! That being said, even changing some facts to make it possible, your situation is not very likely at all. Too many things would have to “go wrong” for it to happen.
But, just for fun, let’s give some names and change a few facts and try to make this work. Steve and Sue are not Catholic, not previously married, and appear to be willing and able to marry. They do so. Later, they divorce and Steve undergoes a ceremony of marriage with Barbara, who is not Catholic and not previously married. They also divorce. Later, Barbara wishes to marry John, a free-to-marry Catholic, and become Catholic herself. She then asks the tribunal to declare her marriage to Steve invalid by reason of his prior bond. The tribunal would, if it gathers evidence that supports the presumed validity of the marriage of Steve and Sue, grant her petition and declare that her attempted marriage to Steve was invalid. All the while, Steve hates Barbara (for whatever reason) and was hatching a devious canonical scheme to make life difficult for her. He was aware of what is contained in the following paragraph but told this tribunal that he knew of no reason why his marriage to Sue would be invalid. Sue, for her part and for whatever reason, did not participate at all in this process.
Unknown to that Tribunal, a year earlier, Sue wished to marry Robert, a free-to-marry Catholic and become Catholic herself. She presented a petition to the tribunal asking that her marriage to Steve be declared invalid because she intended to exclude children from their marriage. This is proven and the marriage was declared invalid from the beginning due to this defect in her marital consent.
Since Steve hates Barbara and knows his canon law, as soon as his marriage to Barbara is declared invalid, he runs to the appeal tribunal and challenges the declaration of nullity (he has 15 days to do this). He says “this sentence was given on the basis of my supposed prior bond to Sue. The Church has definitively declared that there was never such a prior bond (he produces the documentation). This sentence is clearly based on proofs that have now been shown to be false.” It seems to me that the appeal tribunal would have to agree with Steve and “throw out” the decree that said the Steve-Barbara marriage was invalid. In that case, Barbara’s recourse would be to present her case to the tribunal again, based on some other ground of invalidity.
I wonder if this makes any sense. It is rather convoluted but it has to be, in order to happen. Could it happen? Yes.
Dan
1
1ke
Guest
Your hypothetical breaks down right here. The Tribunal is not going to accept a Ligamen case when there is a lack of form involved.
C would not petition for a decree of nullity based on Ligamen. C would complete a lack of form administrative case.
That has no bearing on B and C, who married outside the Catholic Church. Their marriage was invalid, period.
Yes, in a Ligamen case, there must be certainty regarding the validity of the first marriage.
In marriages invovling non-Catholic parties, yes, it might be possible. Involving Catholics, no.
I sugges the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Dan,
Your scenario is not at all possible.
The person’s “freedom to marry” is determined at the time of the marriage itself.
The fact that a marriage is later determined to be an invalid attempt, does not mean that the decree of nullity is retroactive in a way that causes one party to have been free-to-marry in the past.
In your scenario, the declaration of nullity (Steve-Sue) comes AFTER Steve attempts marriage with Barbara. At the time of the Steve-Barbara marriage, Steve was not free to marry. Therefore Steves’s attempt to marry Barbara was still invalid because at the time of the ceremony (Steve-Barb), he was still bound by his prior marriage to Sue.
What you’ve described is simply impossible.
I almost asked you about this earlier because I remember you mentioning the process in your diocese.
But I know that here in the USA the tribunal does review such cases I was wondering what kind of documentation is produced.
V
Vico
Guest
Two states: no marriage (or invalid attempt, lack of form), valid marriage (married with Church approval). There is always the potential of annulment.
Timing is significant.
A and B marry, then divorce, so are not free to marry.
A is still married to B so B invalidly attempts to marry C, and later divorces.
C seeks an annulment when planning on marrying someone else D.
C and D marry, after C documents lack of form invalid attempt.
A seeks an annulment when planning on marrying someone else E.
A and E marry, after A receives an annulment from B. B is now free to marry.
- Status