If 1st marriage was never annulled, then 2nd marriage wouldn't need to be since it wasn't valid?

[Just_Lurking]

How does that square with Canon 1085.2?

Canon 1085.2 is ecclesiastical law, and as such is covered by the following:
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
So as a non-Catholic, the OP was not subject to canon 1085.2.

More generally, if a Catholic has a failed first marriage in the Catholic Church and does not obtain an annulment, then any subsequent marriages would have to take place outside the Catholic Church, as a Catholic priest would be forbidden by canon 1085.2 to perform those subsequent ceremonies. Thus, those subsequent marriages would be invalid by lack of form.

 

[1ke]

Catholic priest would be forbidden by canon 1085.2 to perform those subsequent ceremonies.

But if he did, and the first marriage received a decree of nullity, the second would be a valid though illicit marriage.

 

[tee_eff_em]

But if he did, and the first marriage received a decree of nullity, the second would be a valid though illicit marriage.

I think this must surely be the correct interpretation – Section 1 lays out the *invalid *circumstance; Section 2 indicates that, even when section 1 is technically *not *the case, it remains *impermissible (illicit) *until such circumstance is authoritatively determined.



tee
Who Is: Still Not A Canon Lawyer, and open to correction

 

[dans0622]

Isn’t one of the other questions for dissolution is who ended the marriage? Assuming that neither man were baptized, if the OP is the one who left the marriage then Pauline privilege would not apply either, correct? Isn’t pauline privilege meant to address the abandonment of a spouse by a pagan when the spouse becomes Christian?

I have been under the impression that the Christian is not supposed to be the one that abandoned the marriage, but I could be (and likely am) wrong.

Yes, that question should be asked and the original scenario, presented by St. Paul, was as you have described it.

The issue is not so much the “abandonment” of a marriage, though. If the Petitioning Party was baptized during the common life and then behaved in an immoral/un-Christian way, which made the other Party leave or caused the marriage to fail, that’s contrary to the spirit of the privilege (see canon 1143.2). The bottom line is that this is a question which is asked but the answer is not always determinative.

The more important questions are whether or not the other person wishes to be baptized and if he/she wants to resume common life with the Petitioning Party (see canon 1144.1).

Dan

 

[dans0622]

How does that square with Canon 1085.2?

I am merely curious, and bow to your superior resources since :bowdown:
I Am Not A Canon Lawyer

tee

You already seem to have gotten a satisfactory answer but I’m not sure what you are asking–how does *what *square with c. 1085.2? The “inept process” or the condemnation of it?

Dan

 

[dans0622]

Thank you for being so thorough. I went ahead and contacted both of them recently to let them know that a response from them MAY be needed as I pursue annulments and was able to clear up whether or not they had been baptized as I was not sure before. I assumed that they were, as one has parents who are fairly religious now. Regardless, neither of them were.

Interesting. That may well open up other possibilities. Just make sure the Tribunal is aware of what you know and what you are able to prove through witnesses.

Dan

 

[Usige]

Yes, that question should be asked and the original scenario, presented by St. Paul, was as you have described it.

The issue is not so much the “abandonment” of a marriage, though. If the Petitioning Party was baptized during the common life and then behaved in an immoral/un-Christian way, which made the other Party leave or caused the marriage to fail, that’s contrary to the spirit of the privilege (see canon 1143.2). The bottom line is that this is a question which is asked but the answer is not always determinative.

The more important questions are whether or not the other person wishes to be baptized and if he/she wants to resume common life with the Petitioning Party (see canon 1144.1).

Dan

Thanks for the clarification. I had always understood Pauline and Peterin Privilege to be applied in a limited set of circumstances where baptism or Catholic communion was the primary cause of marital rupture. Some comments makes it seem like two unbaptized people merely requires one to get baptized, toss the other out and they are scot-free. As you say that seems contrary to the intent of the law.

I guess I am wondering if there are circumstances with two unbaptized people that would restrict the application of Pauline privilege in practice or if the behavior of either party ultimately has any practical impact on granting a dissolution?

 

[dans0622]

Thanks for the clarification. I had always understood Pauline and Peterin Privilege to be applied in a limited set of circumstances where baptism or Catholic communion was the primary cause of marital rupture. Some comments makes it seem like two unbaptized people merely requires one to get baptized, toss the other out and they are scot-free. As you say that seems contrary to the intent of the law.

I guess I am wondering if there are circumstances with two unbaptized people that would restrict the application of Pauline privilege in practice or if the behavior of either party ultimately has any practical impact on granting a dissolution?

The fact of baptism doesn’t have to have anything to do with the separation of the Parties. In fact, I don’t recall a case where the reception of baptism/Christian faith was *the *cause of the other Party’s separation. That’s not to say that this can’t happen–I just don’t recall seeing it.

I also don’t recall seeing any cases where the behavior of the baptized Party proved to be an impediment against the use of the privilege. Again, that’s not to say that it can’t be an issue.

For perspective, I have not been involved in many of these cases. I’d guess somewhere in the 40-50 range.

Dan