That is correct. When it is easily seen that the marriage is invalid through not getting a dispensation we call that a documentary case. The pertinent documents such as baptismal certificates , marriage license , affidavit swearing that the marriage was at no time convalidated and anything else are submitted as proof by your priest in a shortened form rather than the longer process which is what is generally referred to as an annulment these days.Thanks guys.
i guess no matter what papers must be filed.
blessings
Well, yes, but…excepting that a marriage isn’t a marriage outside the Church until it is established that the marriage was in fact outside the Church. That might be trivial to do, there is not the same level of examination as when a literal presumption of validity exists–and I admit I was using the legal term incorrectly–but whether the establishing is done or not is not trivial. No, it was never valid, it’s not even a close call, but the call still has to be made.Actually, the marriage of a Catholic outside the Church without a dispensation doesn’t enjoy the presumption of validity. A canon lawyer made that clear on these boards a while ago.
The Deacon I linked to explained it much better than I can.Well, yes, but…excepting that a marriage isn’t a marriage outside the Church until it is established that the marriage was in fact outside the Church. That might be trivial to do, there is not the same level of examination as when a literal presumption of validity exists–and I admit I was using the legal term incorrectly–but whether the establishing is done or not is not trivial. No, it was never valid, it’s not even a close call, but the call still has to be made.
In other words, I meant that a Catholic who previously attempted marriage, but outside the Church, may not simply tell the priest and fiance that he or she is free to marry. Once an attempt at marriage has been made, the fact of invalidity has to be established. All previous attempts at marriage have to be examined for whether any enjoys a presumption of validity in the true legal sense. That is probably a better way to put it.
In other words, I am not talking about a private exchange of rings from some boxes of Cracker Jacks. As far as I know, those are not even recognizable as attempts at marriage. Im contrast, if the marriage was a civilly-recognized marriage and was never dissolved by divorce or annulment in civil court, that is an impediment to marriage. The marriage must be dissolved in the eyes of the state…not for the marriage to be truly invalid, but for the person who attempted that marriage to be truly free to marry. The person may not simply conclude that it was invalid and then go ahead and marry, and that would even be true if the state allowed polygamy. That is true, correct?
I meant that she would have to produce records that showed she was divorced according to civil law as well as the civil marriage record that showed who received the consent. Although the Church holds that the priest is legally competent to make the examination and determine that her previous attempt at marriage does not enjoy a presumption of validity, the previous attempt at marriage had to be examined to see if that legal presumption exists or not. It would not be enough that her sacramental record within the Church showed no attempts at marriage. If the civil documents simply could not be had, she’d have to find witnesses to attest to those facts. The Church holds on to a prudent amount of caution about these matters.The Deacon I linked to explained it much better than I can.
The gal who got ticked off in my office a few years ago (because the priest insisted that the wedding party sit for the first & second readings and the psalm and she didn’t want their dresses wrinkled) and who asked for her money back and got married by the judge the next day is not presumed to be validly married. If she divorced and wanted to marry in the Church her certificate of baptism would show no marriage, her divorce papers would prove her freedom to legally marry and her marriage record would show where she was married and who received their consent. That is all it would take for the priest to say “Yep, you’re free to marry.”