Important question

[Petergee]

This is simply untrue.

The formal tribunal case is the same whether it involves Catholcs or non-Catholics. It is neither “simpler” nor “faster” nor more likely to be declared invalid than a formal case between two Catholics.

I am only paraphrasing what I have read in a pamphlet published by my diocese’s Marriage Tribunal.

 

[Petergee]

Like I said, if the words “until death ye do part,” or words that mean the same thing, were used, then the marriage is valid.

There are a lot more requirements for a valid marriage than a statement of lifetime permanency.

If not, then there can still be a case made that the assumption was there, so it is up to the Tribunal to test the case. You cannot simply assume that because the marriage didn’t take place in a Catholic Church, it is automatically going to be considered “not valid.”

I neither assumed nor said any such thing, nor would I ever make such a ridiculous claim.

Also, getting witnesses to testify might be even trickier in the case of a Protestant marriage, because the witnesses might balk at having to appear in a Catholic court of law to testify.

It is actually rather rare for witnesses to appear at a Marriage Tribunal. Nearly always the evidence is given in writing, or if necessary even transmitted orally by a third party. A witness might never even meet any Catholic official.

And in fact if potential witnesses refuse to give evidence it can actually help the case for a declaration of nullity rather than hinder it. For example in this case if the woman stated to the tribunal that the form of marriage she undertook was lacking in some way, and nobody else who was there is willing to give evidence to contradict her, the Tribunal may conclude that her evidence is true. A Court can only decide a case based on the evidence available to it, not on hypothetical other evidence that might be available if people were willing to give it.

 

[Petergee]

I think we both agree that it is far more complex than, “Oh, she was Protestant, she was not capable of contracting a valid marriage, therefore.”

Whom do you think that you are quoting? Nobody here has said anything like that, and I’ve never heard or seen anybody elsewhere say such a thing…

 

[jmcrae]

Whom do you think that you are quoting? Nobody here has said anything like that, and I’ve never heard or seen anybody elsewhere say such a thing…

I was paraphrasing the idea that a Protestant marriage is simpler and/or faster to declare “null” than a Catholic marriage. All marriages are equally presumed valid, and all of them are examined carefully.

Never give anyone the impression that their case is going to be “easy.” Some are and some aren’t, but it has nothing to do with what religion the parties were at the time of the wedding, except in a case where there is lack of form on the part of a Catholic - and even then, they still have to make sure that no Bishop ever gave consent to the wedding.