I have a totally hypothetical question, but it's something I'm curious about

[Modestly_Anne]

If a Protestant and a Catholic marry in a Protestant Church without permission from the Church (say the Catholic has fallen away for some time) and they’ve been married for 10 or even 20 years and have had children together. They were happily married for many of the years and there was absolutely nothing else to make the marriage invalid at the time they exchanged vows. They sincerely both wanted to get married.

Could the Catholic get divorced and have the marriage annulled?

I’ve heard that the Catholic could but can’t believe that is really true. It seems absurd since they still stood in front of God and made those vows.

 

[Joan_M]

If a Protestant and a Catholic marry in a Protestant Church without permission from the Church (say the Catholic has fallen away for some time) and they’ve been married for 10 or even 20 years and have had children together. They were happily married for many of the years and there was absolutely nothing else to make the marriage invalid at the time they exchanged vows. They sincerely both wanted to get married.

Could the Catholic get divorced and have the marriage annulled?

I’ve heard that the Catholic could but can’t believe that is really true. It seems absurd since they still stood in front of God and made those vows.

Quite simply, the Catholic is bound by the Sacramental rules of the Catholic church, so, since no permission was received to marry in a Protestant Church, they are not validly married. The number of years they are together has no bearing on the issue.

 

[cjmclark]

If a Protestant and a Catholic marry in a Protestant Church without permission from the Church (say the Catholic has fallen away for some time) and they’ve been married for 10 or even 20 years and have had children together. They were happily married for many of the years and there was absolutely nothing else to make the marriage invalid at the time they exchanged vows. They sincerely both wanted to get married.

Could the Catholic get divorced and have the marriage annulled?

I’ve heard that the Catholic could but can’t believe that is really true. It seems absurd since they still stood in front of God and made those vows.

An annulment would not be required. The marriage, having been undertaken outside the Church without a dispensation (a.k.a. lack of canonical form), is sacramentally invalid from day one, so its nullity is clear and does not require a tribunal for investigation.

All the Catholic would need to do is obtain the divorce and then go to Reconciliation (wherein they would have to sincerely repent for the 10-20 years of living in sin, as it were) and they are free to participate in the Sacraments (Eucharist, Marriage, et c.).

The Catechism covers Matrimony here. Of particular interest is CCC 1623, which states “According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church.” (emphasis added). It is worth noting that the priest/deacon is present as a witness to verify the ecclesial reality of the union.

 

[Modestly_Anne]

An annulment would not be required. The marriage, having been undertaken outside the Church without a dispensation (a.k.a. lack of canonical form), is sacramentally invalid from day one, so its nullity is clear and does not require a tribunal for investigation.

All the Catholic would need to do is obtain the divorce and then go to Reconciliation (wherein they would have to sincerely repent for the 10-20 years of living in sin, as it were) and they are free to participate in the Sacraments (Eucharist, Marriage, et c.).

Wow that just seems so wrong. I know I’m obviously not fully understanding the Sacramental aspect (so no disrespect intended) but just the fact that the vows they professed before God to love one another until death they part and the children produced and yet two protestants that marry is considered legal…Yet it wasn’t sacramental either…

And a baptism performed outside the Church is considered valid.

I admit to being totally confused.

 

[cjmclark]

Wow that just seems so wrong. I know I’m obviously not fully understanding the Sacramental aspect (so no disrespect intended) but just the fact that the vows they professed before God to love one another until death they part and the children produced and yet two protestants that marry is considered legal…Yet it wasn’t sacramental either…

And a baptism performed outside the Church is considered valid.

I admit to being totally confused.

Please read the section of the Catechism to which I linked in my above post (I’m afraid I edited it in while you were responding). That should be able to explain it better than I can.

As far as Baptism, that’s a bit of a different animal. The rules aren’t the same, but as it’s a totally different Sacrament, that’s not really unusual.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

If a Protestant and a Catholic marry in a Protestant Church without permission from the Church (say the Catholic has fallen away for some time) and they’ve been married for 10 or even 20 years and have had children together. They were happily married for many of the years and there was absolutely nothing else to make the marriage invalid at the time they exchanged vows. They sincerely both wanted to get married.

Could the Catholic get divorced and have the marriage annulled?

I’ve heard that the Catholic could but can’t believe that is really true. It seems absurd since they still stood in front of God and made those vows.

I would never presume to answer such a question and no forum member should, either. Hypothetical questions are of no use at all, because the whole situation would have to be presented to a tribunal having first gone through a parish priest.

With this happily married couple, you gave no reason why they would even get divorced in the first place so

Why would such a lapsed Catholic choose divorce and if so, why would he or she choose to apply for annulment? If the Church hasn’t had any bearing for the last 20 years, why suddenly both divorce and applying for annulment?

 

[cjmclark]

**I would never presume to answer such a question and no forum member should, either. ** Hypothetical questions are of no use at all, because the whole situation would have to be presented to a tribunal having first gone through a parish priest.

With this happily married couple, you gave no reason why they would even get divorced in the first place so

Why would such a lapsed Catholic choose divorce and if so, why would he or she choose to apply for annulment? If the Church hasn’t had any bearing for the last 20 years, why suddenly both divorce and applying for annulment?

It’s a pretty cut-and-dried issue. No tribunal would be convened because (lacking a dispensation to marry) the nullity of the union due to lack of canonical form is clear.

 

[Modestly_Anne]

I would never presume to answer such a question and no forum member should, either. Hypothetical questions are of no use at all, because the whole situation would have to be presented to a tribunal having first gone through a parish priest.

With this happily married couple, you gave no reason why they would even get divorced in the first place so

Why would such a lapsed Catholic choose divorce and if so, why would he or she choose to apply for annulment? If the Church hasn’t had any bearing for the last 20 years, why suddenly both divorce and applying for annulment?

I’m just trying to learn and understand and I’ve read other threads that had me curious. Students do hypothetical questions all the time in school to learn and understand and I’m trying to learn and understand about the Church.

I gave no reason because as I said it is truly all hypothetical. I also said they were happily married for many years, but then obviously something would have had to change. Let’s say one grew distance, and so the other had an affair…I don’t know. But eventually they divorced and then the Catholic wanted to remarry, say another Catholic.

I guess I just don’t understand how two protestants marrying outside the Church have a valid marriage in the Church’s eyes, but a Catholic who married a Protestant outside the Church doesn’t and could hypothetically walk away and have it all annulled even though they knew and understood what the Church taught.

Julianne, if you don’t care for my question, then you don’t have to answer it. There seems some are willing to help others learn and not get so hung up over the hypothetical circumstances.

 

[Trishie]

Hi Anne
The Catholic is still bound by the laws of the Church. Non- Catholics are not.

catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

God bless you

 

[Modestly_Anne]

An annulment would not be required. The marriage, having been undertaken outside the Church without a dispensation (a.k.a. lack of canonical form), is sacramentally invalid from day one, so its nullity is clear and does not require a tribunal for investigation.

All the Catholic would need to do is obtain the divorce and then go to Reconciliation (wherein they would have to sincerely repent for the 10-20 years of living in sin, as it were) and they are free to participate in the Sacraments (Eucharist, Marriage, et c.).

The Catechism covers Matrimony here. Of particular interest is CCC 1623, which states “According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church.” (emphasis added). It is worth noting that the priest/deacon is present as a witness to verify the ecclesial reality of the union.

Thank you. I’ll go read what it has to say. Still doesn’t make sense to me, why two non-Catholics are considered legally married even though it wasn’t sacramental in the Church’s eyes. Maybe I’ll find the answer in the link.

 

[cjmclark]

Thank you. I’ll go read what it has to say. Still doesn’t make sense to me, why two non-Catholics are considered legally married even though it wasn’t sacramental in the Church’s eyes. Maybe I’ll find the answer in the link.

Anne,

Trishie sums it up pretty well in her post above.

Simply put, because the Catholic is Catholic (even lapsed), he or she is required to abide by the rules of the Church (canon law) in marriage, as in all other things. One of those rules is that your marriage must be witnessed by a Catholic priest or deacon, unless you have received a dispensation from your Bishop.

Non-Catholics are not bound by canon law, which is why when two non-Catholics who were married outside the Church convert to Catholicism, their marriage is considered valid, as they are assumed to have entered into it in good faith.

I realize that that may not make much sense on the surface, but if you look a little deeper you see that all that’s happening here is that the Catholic is being held to the standards of the Church. It is unrealistic to expect (and is in fact impossible) for two non-Catholics to be married in the Church, which is why when a non-Catholic married couple converts to Catholicism, their marriage is presumed valid. The Catholic marrying the non-Catholic, on the other hand, is required to abide by the rules and is supposed to know better, and if he or she does not seek the necessary dispensation to marry outside the Church, their marriage is presumed invalid as it did not occur within the boundaries of those rules (canon law) the Church has set for us.

Does that make sense?

 

[Modestly_Anne]

Anne,

Trishie sums it up pretty well in her post above.

Simply put, because the Catholic is Catholic (even lapsed), he or she is required to abide by the rules of the Church (canon law) in marriage, as in all other things. One of those rules is that your marriage must be witnessed by a Catholic priest or deacon, unless you have received a dispensation from your Bishop.

Non-Catholics are not bound by canon law, which is why when two non-Catholics who were married outside the Church convert to Catholicism, their marriage is considered valid, as they are assumed to have entered into it in good faith.

I realize that that may not make much sense on the surface, but if you look a little deeper you see that all that’s happening here is that the Catholic is being held to the standards of the Church. It is unrealistic to expect (and is in fact impossible) for two non-Catholics to be married in the Church, which is why when a non-Catholic married couple converts to Catholicism, their marriage is presumed valid. The Catholic marrying the non-Catholic, on the other hand, is required to abide by the rules and is supposed to know better, and if he or she does not seek the necessary dispensation to marry outside the Church, their marriage is presumed invalid as it did not occur within the boundaries of those rules (canon law) the Church has set for us.

Does that make sense?

Thanks, that does explain it a bit better, although I wonder about all the Catholics that are baptized as babies and then never brought up in the Church or even their parents defect and start taking them to Protestant Churches while they are still young. Are they really walking around with invalid marriages? Does God really not think them married. I mean if this hypothetical couple had remained happily married, would their marriage really be invalid? What does that mean in regards to their children? Are they illegitimate? If not, how is that the case?

I understand rules, but I just can’t help but believe in God’s eyes the marriage and vows made before Him by a baptized Catholic and a Protestant without a priest witness would be every bit as valid as two Protestants if they both sincerely meant what they promised to each other in His name at the time they made their vows.

Obvioulsy it doesn’t matter what I believe but it’s just hard to understand.

 

[Mintaka]

Okay… some misconceptions here.

As long as there’s no trouble between husband and wife, the Church assumes that even a marriage with some messed-up stuff in how it was contracted, is a marriage – just sort of incomplete. So… the Church would much rather that the Catholic and the Protestant ask for the marriage to be convalidated by the parish priest, which would make it a sacramentally valid marriage. And usually there’s no trouble doing this.

If husband and wife want to divorce, obviously there’s something wrong.

The other thing to be considered is, why would a Catholic not want to marry someone in the Church, if the Catholic loves that person and wants to marry him/her? So if that happens, either there’s something wrong with the Catholic’s desire to marry (ie, not being honest with his would-be spouse), or with the Catholic’s Catholicness (ie, denying who they are, or wanting to do the wrong thing). Either of those things being wrong makes it hard for a Catholic to honestly marry anybody.

Also, it’s for the protection of the non-Catholic partner. If somebody never signed on for Catholic rules, he/she shouldn’t be bound by Catholic rules. This has been a very important protection in the past for non-Catholics that need to leave a marriage. Unfortunately, this right cuts both ways…

So yeah, it’s for the protection of the stupid and doomed, and for honesty about what is going on in a marriage. But it’s also pretty brutal, which is why the Church would rather bring blessings and affirmation (ie, convalidation) rather than judgment (ie, bringing in the canon law courts).

 

[cjmclark]

Thanks, that does explain it a bit better, although I wonder about all the Catholics that are baptized as babies and then never brought up in the Church or even their parents defect and start taking them to Protestant Churches while they are still young. Are they really walking around with invalid marriages? Does God really not think them married. I mean if this hypothetical couple had remained happily married, would their marriage really be invalid? What does that mean in regards to their children? Are they illegitimate? If not, how is that the case?

I understand rules, but I just can’t help but believe in God’s eyes the marriage and vows made before Him by a baptized Catholic and a Protestant without a priest witness would be every bit as valid as two Protestants if they both sincerely meant what they promised to each other in His name at the time they made their vows.

Obvioulsy it doesn’t matter what I believe but it’s just hard to understand.

First and foremost, legitimacy is a legal issue, not a sacramental one. Two Catholics who marry civilly (and haven’t undergone Convalidation) have an invalid marriage, but legally their children are legitimate and will inherit, et c.

Second, it’s important to understand the Church’s perspective on this. It’s all well and good to say that God has “witnessed” a marriage, but in the eyes of the Church, a marriage cannot be declared valid unless it has been witnessed by a member of the clergy. This is as much for the benefit of the couple as it is for the Church, as that member (be he priest or deacon) ensures that the Sacrament is validly executed. It also gives the couple a measure of accountability, as their vows have not only been sworn publicly, but in the case of a wedding Mass, in the presence both of a priest acting in persona Christi (that is, in the person of Christ) and of Jesus Christ Himself in the form of the Eucharist. All the more reason to consider that vow indissoluble.

As far as Catholics raised outside the Church, yes, their marriages would still be invalid. What would vary is their level of culpability in the sin engendered by living in an invalid marriage. It is worth noting that if, at any point, they chose to return to the Church, it is as simple as going to Reconciliation (again, with that genuine repentance) and having their marriage Convalidated, after which it’s considered completely valid. It’s not like they’re stuck with a permanently invalid marriage. That’s what Mintaka is talking about, and yes, that’s the much preferred path. My earlier answers were based on the OP, which indicated that everything had gone south and divorce was a done deal.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Thanks, that does explain it a bit better, although I wonder about all the Catholics that are baptized as babies and then never brought up in the Church or even their parents defect and start taking them to Protestant Churches while they are still young. Are they really walking around with invalid marriages? Does God really not think them married. I mean if this hypothetical couple had remained happily married, would their marriage really be invalid? What does that mean in regards to their children? Are they illegitimate? If not, how is that the case?

I understand rules, but I just can’t help but believe in God’s eyes the marriage and vows made before Him by a baptized Catholic and a Protestant without a priest witness would be every bit as valid as two Protestants if they both sincerely meant what they promised to each other in His name at the time they made their vows.

Obvioulsy it doesn’t matter what I believe but it’s just hard to understand.

God established only one Church – the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church. Her priests are validly ordained, and the marriages they witness are validly sacramental. Protestant ecclesial communities are man-made and their ministers are self-appointed. Expecting the Catholic Church to recognize the marriage of any and all Catholics who decide to marry in front of a Protestant minister is not logical. Your question assumes that all “churches” are equal in God’s eyes. The Catholic Church set the rules for marriage for 16 centuries. It was Luther who put the state and his own ecclesial community, and consequently the avalanche of others that followed, in charge.

Just my :twocents:

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Thank you. I’ll go read what it has to say. Still doesn’t make sense to me, why two non-Catholics are considered legally married even though it wasn’t sacramental in the Church’s eyes. Maybe I’ll find the answer in the link.

After reading this thread and still seeing your confusion I am going to guess that you’re confusion lies in your misunderstanding of legal marriage and sacramental marriage.

Anyone can get married in the eyes of the government and people can even go before a judge to do so, but the Catholic Church doesn’t treat marriage as a legal contract between a man and woman-- the government does that. Because the government treats marriage as a legal contract between two people, the Church must obey the law of the land and so the couple has to get a marriage license. The Church views it as a Sacrament, and so in determining if a marriage is annulled She determines if the Sacrament was ever valid in the first place (i.e. one spouse cheated on another, so there was never really a marriage in the first place).

Since marriage is a Sacrament, and the only Church that was given authority by God to administer such a Sacrament is the Catholic Church, the Church would not consider it a valid Sacrament if was done in another Church. Same goes with any other Sacrament (with an exception to baptism)-- if you receive communion in a protestant church, it is still called communion there perhaps (or the Lord’s Supper), but it is not a valid Sacrament.

They are right, those who are saying that you would not need an annulment in a situation like this, because it is not a valid Sacrament to begin with. While the proceedings of an annulment may appear to be legal proceedings, the Sacrament of marriage is not a legal contract in the Church-- I’ll repeat for clarification: it’s a Sacrament. See: newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

In regards to the question not worthy to answer because it is hypothetical: It is within the realm of possibility, therefore, it is worth getting well thought out and charitable answers.

 

[PeterJohn]

The catholic church accepts most any baptisms regardless of where you are baptized.
Because God does the baptizing.

A marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and the 1 true God.
God joins them together, because of they’re oaths they swear in his presence.

That’s what I thought.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Wow that just seems so wrong. I know I’m obviously not fully understanding the Sacramental aspect (so no disrespect intended) but just the fact that the vows they professed before God to love one another until death they part and the children produced and yet two protestants that marry is considered legal…Yet it wasn’t sacramental either…

And a baptism performed outside the Church is considered valid.

I admit to being totally confused.

I think here the issue you have is the word “vows.” When speaking about two Protestants they did indeed take vows. When speaking about a Catholic who did not follow proper form due to disobedience of Baptismal promises then the Catholic did not indeed make Sacramental vows while the intent may have been there. I know my language may be a little terse here and I hope I am not coming off blunt or offensive but I am highlighting the difference. I think here the difference is in the obedience.

 

[faithfully]

I think here the issue you have is the word “vows.” When speaking about two Protestants they did indeed take vows. When speaking about a Catholic who did not follow proper form due to disobedience of Baptismal promises then the Catholic did not indeed make **Sacramental vows **while the intent may have been there. I know my language may be a little terse here and I hope I am not coming off blunt or offensive but I am highlighting the difference. I think here the difference is in the obedience.

Not sure about the semantics.

I’m a Catholic. DH is not baptised. We were married in the Catholic church. Our marriage is valid. It is NOT Sacramental.

 

[tgrath]

So, let me understand. The position of the Catholic Church is that the marriage of a Catholic is only valid when performed within the Church, of with “dispensation”. Yet every other marriage is also valid. Or, does the Church teach that the only valid marriages are its own?