Invalid marriages

[backtocatholic]

Just read Pope Francis’ view that many marriages are invalid due to lack of knowledge about the permanence of marriage.

Is this simply refering to the fact that these people have grounds for annulment, or does this mean that up to 50% of married people are living in sin.

I understand that a marriage has to be proven to be invalid by the annulment process. Does that mean that if there is any doubt about the level of understanding that a couple can continue to live as man and wife unless it is proven as part of the annulment process.

Most people entering marriage nowadays are aware that many marriages end in separation or divorce. This may cloud their understanding.

I’ve looked this up on EWTN and the’ve said according to cannon law that ignorance of the invalidity of marriage doesn’t invalid the Sacrament unless it is willed in relation to the individual marriage.

Any opinions.

 

[Christy_Beth]

I can only speak of my own experience. I was married, and divorced, while a Protestant. I finally came to the conclusion, the hard way, that my ex didn’t take his vows seriously. Basically, he thought I was married but he wasn’t. Talk about a real idiot. He had all the freedom of a single man, but I was married because he didn’t want me talking to any other man. He was also abusive. The marriage lasted 3 1/2 years. After becoming a Catholic, I went ahead and applied for an annulment. Not because I was planning on getting remarried or anything, but because it was one more step to putting that behind me. I wasn’t allowed to read what he may or may not have said. But it’s perhaps better that way. If I would have been allowed to read that stuff, it may have sucked me back into the abusive stuff that he so liked to toss my way.

 

[Elizium23]

Marriage enjoys the favor of the law. Two people who have married in good faith are in a “putative marriage” which means it is assumed to be valid until proven otherwise. Therefore people are not “living in sin” unless you take the case of a baptized Catholic, bound to observe the laws of the Church, who attempted marriage outside the Church without permission. That would be a presumptively invalid marriage and a clear case of fornication or adultery. But that is the exception to the rule. In general, nobody should call a marriage invalid until the divorce is final and the declaration of nullity is in hand.

 

[Gorgias]

Just read Pope Francis’ view that many marriages are invalid due to lack of knowledge about the permanence of marriage.

Is this simply refering to the fact that these people have grounds for annulment, or does this mean that up to 50% of married people are living in sin.

Neither.

Can you point us to this statement from an original source (rather than some news outlet’s report)? I can’t imagine that Francis could possibly say this, since an on-going marriage, which began with a wedding in the Church in which the couple did everything they were asked in order to comply with the Church’s requirements – for consent, lack of impediment, and form – would be presumed to be married validly. No one in the Church could look at them and say, “oh, yeah – this couple is in an invalid marriage”…!

I understand that a marriage has to be proven to be invalid by the annulment process. Does that mean that if there is any doubt about the level of understanding that a couple can continue to live as man and wife unless it is proven as part of the annulment process.

No, it doesn’t mean this. A couple in a valid marriage doesn’t have to prove the validity of their marriage*** to anyone***, for any reason. They are validly married, period.

Any opinions.

No opinions – just facts according to canon law.

 

[backtocatholic]

On the EWTN website there is an article about cannon law 1099.

Please disregard my earlier comment as it was just based on a news report.

 

[Casilda]

Marriage enjoys the favor of the law. Two people who have married in good faith are in a “putative marriage” which means it is assumed to be valid until proven otherwise. Therefore people are not “living in sin” unless you take the case of a baptized Catholic, bound to observe the laws of the Church, who attempted marriage outside the Church without permission. That would be a presumptively invalid marriage and a clear case of fornication or adultery. But that is the exception to the rule. In general, nobody should call a marriage invalid until the divorce is final and the declaration of nullity is in hand.

I want to add, as a baptized Catholic who was raised to believe death parted a marriage and chose to marry a Christian with the same beliefs but didn’t know to marry inside the Catholic church but did marry inside my husband’s church and had been married 30+ years and now that he wanted to convert to Catholicism to assist my reconciliation with the church then I was told I was outside the church and living in mortal sin with no recourse…it was harmful to my marriage. I thought my only recourse was to leave my husband and live celibate to be able to have my confession heard and be absolved and come back into communion.

So a 30+ plus year marriage was destroyed by this uncharitable edict. Had the priest been more pastoral and offered counseling. I was turned away. So, its an irony, that now that we are both Catholic, entering through the Eastern doors, our marriage was a casualty. I just can’t fathom all the divorced and remarried couples I see in the church and yet we were never divorced but always just married to each other but the church saw fit to destroy that. I just can’t understand.

 

[Rau]

I want to add, as a baptized Catholic who was raised to believe death parted a marriage and chose to marry a Christian with the same beliefs but didn’t know to marry inside the Catholic church but did marry inside my husband’s church and had been married 30+ years and now that he wanted to convert to Catholicism to assist my reconciliation with the church then I was told I was outside the church and living in mortal sin with no recourse…it was harmful to my marriage. I thought my only recourse was to leave my husband and live celibate to be able to have my confession heard and be absolved and come back into communion.

So a 30+ plus year marriage was destroyed by this uncharitable edict. Had the priest been more pastoral and offered counseling. I was turned away. So, its an irony, that now that we are both Catholic, entering through the Eastern doors, our marriage was a casualty. I just can’t fathom all the divorced and remarried couples I see in the church and yet we were never divorced but always just married to each other but the church saw fit to destroy that. I just can’t understand.

Exactly what was the “uncharitable” edict? I don’t understand.

On the presumption your marriage was the only marriage either of you entered, the events you describe don’t make sense to me. Marrying in the wrong “form” - ie. not in the Catholic Church (given you are Catholic) can be rectified.

 

[backtocatholic]

Thanks for all your replies.

I must have got things out of context/

 

[JoeFreedom]

Exactly what was the “uncharitable” edict? I don’t understand.

On the presumption your marriage was the only marriage either of you entered, the events you describe don’t make sense to me. Marrying in the wrong “form” - ie. not in the Catholic Church (given you are Catholic) can be rectified.

I’m confused too… (can your further elaborate?)

I know there are many scenarios that can occur… one is Catholic, other not, then marries inside church, neither are Catholic, both marry, one divorces, etc. and each situation has it’s own resulting options to be rectified, but this doesn’t make any sense to me. I’d like to know simply because it can be confusing at times the resolution to all of these situations.

For example, my wife, a Catholic, divorced and annulled, then married me, a Lutheran, by a Lutheran minister, where then one year later after RCIA I became fully Catholic, then we actually married again (marriage blessing in CC, and true date of Catholic marriage)… was Catholic to Lutheran marriage duration meaning we (or she only) was in sin until marriage was blessed by CC!!! Trust me, it does get confusing.

 

[Casilda]

I’m confused too… (can your further elaborate?)

I know there are many scenarios that can occur… one is Catholic, other not, then marries inside church, neither are Catholic, both marry, one divorces, etc. and each situation has it’s own resulting options to be rectified, but this doesn’t make any sense to me. I’d like to know simply because it can be confusing at times the resolution to all of these situations.

For example, my wife, a Catholic, divorced and annulled, then married me, a Lutheran, by a Lutheran minister, where then one year later after RCIA I became fully Catholic, then we actually married again (marriage blessing in CC, and true date of Catholic marriage)… was Catholic to Lutheran marriage duration meaning we (or she only) was in sin until marriage was blessed by CC!!! Trust me, it does get confusing.

In my situation, I was baptized Catholic but raised outside the church. Unawares I committed a mortal sin by marrying a Christian in his church ( the pastor who raised him since birth married us, btw that pastor was also a former Catholic). We had that traditional wedding, traditional vows, etc. So we lived over 30 years believing we were married in the eyes of God.

Then when my husband was willing to convert to Catholicism and assist me to come back into the church/revert we get bombarded with opstacles and paperwork and accusations of being liars, and told our marriage was everything but valid. Neither one of us had been married before. He left his parents home to marry me, I left my parents home to marry him. I thought this marriage blessing would be simple, no annulments, etc. My mortal sin was to have been baptized Catholic. If I was a satanist who happened to marry a Christian who now both wanted to be Catholic, all would have been easier. Something is wrong with this picture.

Now the Eastern priest says that RCC tend towards legalism. He recognized we were both CHRISTIAN and practicing our faith since birth and because of the verses below, the paperwork and marriage was to seal our existing marriage, not creating a marriage that was not there to begin with.

I gave up on the revert process. I am only a Catholic revert today BECAUSE my husband converted to Eastern Catholic. If he had chosen Eastern Orthodox, since I refused to give up on Pope Francis, I would be odd man out. The Lord had Mercy.

1 Corinthians 7:12-16

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

So Paul is saying, to me at least, that I saved my husband and then my husband saved me by restoring me to the church.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

For example, my wife, a Catholic, divorced and annulled, then married me, a Lutheran, by a Lutheran minister, where then one year later after RCIA I became fully Catholic, then we actually married again (marriage blessing in CC, and true date of Catholic marriage)… was Catholic to Lutheran marriage duration meaning we (or she only) was in sin until marriage was blessed by CC!!! Trust me, it does get confusing.

If a Catholic has a wedding without Catholic “form” - or a dispensation from observing that form - no marriage takes place. It is somewhat comparable to (on the civil/legal plane) holding a wedding without having bothered to get a marriage license, or not having a state-empowered witness present. Catholics often use the phrase “having the marriage blessed” when people who have been civilly married now hold an ecclesiastical ceremony, but that terminology is misleading because we do not believe there was a marriage present - in your own case (on the basis of your description), you weren’t “actually married again” but married for the first time when you exchanged vows in the Catholic ceremony.

While “living in sin” speaks adequately to the objective state of affairs for invalidly married couples, it doesn’t capture the subjective reality. I suspect that the majority of marriages invalid due to lack/defect of form were entered into in ignorance, not defiance, of the Catholic requirement of form. If all parties in good faith intended to marry and thought they were married, that would greatly mitigate whatever guilt might be present for having lived as if they were married (it doesn’t automatically remove all blame because the ignorance may have been avoidable). When I speak with couples about marriage validity issues I make sure to tell people that, in pointing them to an objective problem, the Church isn’t questioning their good faith or commitment to the relationship, even if they may be challenged to take a different course to continue in the same good faith (in this case, get married now in fact).

 

[Gorgias]

In my situation, I was baptized Catholic but raised outside the church. Unawares I committed a mortal sin by marrying a Christian in his church

It’s impossible to commit a mortal sin ‘unawares’. Literally, that means that the sin is not mortal, by definition.

Then when my husband was willing to convert to Catholicism and assist me to come back into the church/revert we get bombarded with opstacles and paperwork and accusations of being liars, and told our marriage was everything but valid.

So, strictly speaking, according to the Catholic Church, a valid [sacramental] marriage for a Catholic must be performed according to the form prescribed by the Church. That holds both for the Latin and Eastern Rites.

In your case, given the things you’ve said around the forums, you were treated pretty poorly. That really stinks. I can’t imagine how painful that was for you.

However, that doesn’t mean that the treatment you received is the policy of the Church, nor does it mean that it’s the treatment that all receive. You really received a raw deal, and I’m really sorry you went through that. But… that doesn’t mean that your experience is characteristic of the Church. Might there be others who can tell stories not unlike yours? I’m sure there are. Does that mean that you’re in the majority? Does that mean that most get treated that way? Nope. One instance like yours is too many; but that doesn’t mean that it’s representative.

Neither one of us had been married before. He left his parents home to marry me, I left my parents home to marry him. I thought this marriage blessing would be simple, no annulments, etc.

No annulment would have been necessary, if neither of you were previously married. Something’s really amiss, here, if you’re asserting that you were told you needed to get an annulment. (Did you mention the timeframe for this attempted return to the Church? Before or after 1983?)

My mortal sin was to have been baptized Catholic. If I was a satanist who happened to marry a Christian who now both wanted to be Catholic, all would have been easier. Something is wrong with this picture.

That’s what we keep telling you.

There’s something very wrong about the treatment you’re telling us you received. It’s so wrong, it’s almost inconceivable.

Now the Eastern priest says that RCC tend towards legalism. He recognized we were both CHRISTIAN and practicing our faith since birth and because of the verses below, the paperwork and marriage was to seal our existing marriage, not creating a marriage that was not there to begin with.

If that’s what he told you, then he too wasn’t following what his Church teaches. (See canon 810 of the CCEO: since you were required to follow the form of the Catholic Church for your marriage, but you instead were married by a non-Catholic minister, the marriage was not valid.) It’s not a mortal sin, as I mentioned above, but it nevertheless did not create a valid sacramental marriage.

Moreover, your marriage in the Eastern Rite was a ‘convalidation’, which required a new act of consent. So, it really was “creating a [sacramental] marriage that was not there to begin with.” Don’t get me wrong – you two were really married civilly… just not sacramentally. So, there’s no “sealing”; instead, there was a “new act of marriage.”

I gave up on the revert process.

There’s really no ‘process’ to revert, though. Somebody in parish[es] in your area really gave you the run-around, and that really stinks. But, there’s no canonical process that you have to go through, in order to revert. It looks like someone really held up the convalidation of your marriage (which was necessary for you to return to the practice of the sacraments), though.

I am only a Catholic revert today BECAUSE my husband converted to Eastern Catholic. If he had chosen Eastern Orthodox, since I refused to give up on Pope Francis, I would be odd man out.

Actually, no. If you had married in the Orthodox Church, and then went to a parish that was following the rules, you could have regularized your marital situation (at the very least, through a radical sanation).

Casilda, I don’t want to appear to be minimizing or explaining away the pain that you went through. But, when you spin it as characteristic and representative of the Latin Church, you really are saying things that are untrue. I’m really sorry you were hurt so badly, and that you continue to carry that hurt with you.

 

[AttendeDomine]

Casilda, I don’t want to appear to be minimizing or explaining away the pain that you went through. But, when you spin it as characteristic and representative of the Latin Church, you really are saying things that are untrue. I’m really sorry you were hurt so badly, and that you continue to carry that hurt with you.

For what it’s worth, I quite agree.

Casilda, I used to post under a different name (before I irrecoverably lost the password) and I believe I remember when you were going through a lot of these problems. I recall some of the threads you made with regard to these various issues, and how much frustration you seemed to be going through. I also recall how struck I was by the unusual natural of the whole affair. I would almost describe it as bizarre.

For that reason, I always get rather sad when I see in your posts that you’re still hurt from your experiences. It also makes me sad that, as Gorgias has noted, you seem to generalize your experience.

For the sake of not scandalizing others, I think it’s important to separate personal bad experiences from the norm. If you don’t believe that such a norm exists, it would at the least be charitable to assume that it does.

 

[JoeFreedom]

If a Catholic has a wedding without Catholic “form” - or a dispensation from observing that form - no marriage takes place. It is somewhat comparable to (on the civil/legal plane) holding a wedding without having bothered to get a marriage license, or not having a state-empowered witness present. Catholics often use the phrase “having the marriage blessed” when people who have been civilly married now hold an ecclesiastical ceremony, but that terminology is misleading because we do not believe there was a marriage present - in your own case (on the basis of your description), you weren’t “actually married again” but married for the first time when you exchanged vows in the Catholic ceremony.

While “living in sin” speaks adequately to the objective state of affairs for invalidly married couples, it doesn’t capture the subjective reality. I suspect that the majority of marriages invalid due to lack/defect of form were entered into in ignorance, not defiance, of the Catholic requirement of form. If all parties in good faith intended to marry and thought they were married, that would greatly mitigate whatever guilt might be present for having lived as if they were married (it doesn’t automatically remove all blame because the ignorance may have been avoidable). When I speak with couples about marriage validity issues I make sure to tell people that, in pointing them to an objective problem, the Church isn’t questioning their good faith or commitment to the relationship, even if they may be challenged to take a different course to continue in the same good faith (in this case, get married now in fact).

All of this is so difficult for me to understand. I’m not committing heresy by saying I disagree with the CC, but I don’t understand why all of this is necessary. My wife and I still celebrate our anniversary on the original date of when we were married, and not the date when we were married in the CC. I mean I understand one cannot be married twice (unless the spouse dies of course), but to me, the first date is when we entered into marriage. To me our CC “marriage” was only that the CC recognized it, not that they married us. It is difficult to believe that God did not see my intentions to be married to my wife on that first day, as in the eyes of God, I meant to be one with her, to be married to her, both as Christians, and to love her and to love God, but I guess if I didn’t believe all that the CC believed (even though at times hard), I would have never had gone back to be “married again”.

 

[Gorgias]

To me our CC “marriage” was only that the CC recognized it, not that they married us. It is difficult to believe that God did not see my intentions to be married to my wife on that first day, as in the eyes of God, I meant to be one with her, to be married to her, both as Christians, and to love her and to love God, but I guess if I didn’t believe all that the CC believed (even though at times hard), I would have never had gone back to be “married again”.

Let’s go back to the example that Andreas used originally, then:

If you intended to marry your wife on that first day, but didn’t get a license, didn’t get married by someone who the civil authorities recognized, and didn’t do it ‘officially’ – such that you would be considered ‘married’ in public – would you still say “it is difficult to believe that the state did not see my intentions to be married on that day”?

In other words, does your ‘intent’ trump all objective standards for marriage? If not for your civil status, then… well, why then for the Church?

 

[Elizium23]

All of this is so difficult for me to understand. I’m not committing heresy by saying I disagree with the CC, but I don’t understand why all of this is necessary. My wife and I still celebrate our anniversary on the original date of when we were married, and not the date when we were married in the CC. I mean I understand one cannot be married twice (unless the spouse dies of course), but to me, the first date is when we entered into marriage. To me our CC “marriage” was only that the CC recognized it, not that they married us. It is difficult to believe that God did not see my intentions to be married to my wife on that first day, as in the eyes of God, I meant to be one with her, to be married to her, both as Christians, and to love her and to love God, but I guess if I didn’t believe all that the CC believed (even though at times hard), I would have never had gone back to be “married again”.

The Catholic Church actually has a procedure for making the original wedding valid. It is called “radical sanation”. If your marriage was convalidated in this manner, then there is nothing wrong with celebrating the original wedding anniversary.

 

[Vico]

All of this is so difficult for me to understand. I’m not committing heresy by saying I disagree with the CC, but I don’t understand why all of this is necessary. My wife and I still celebrate our anniversary on the original date of when we were married, and not the date when we were married in the CC. I mean I understand one cannot be married twice (unless the spouse dies of course), but to me, the first date is when we entered into marriage. To me our CC “marriage” was only that the CC recognized it, not that they married us. It is difficult to believe that God did not see my intentions to be married to my wife on that first day, as in the eyes of God, I meant to be one with her, to be married to her, both as Christians, and to love her and to love God, but I guess if I didn’t believe all that the CC believed (even though at times hard), I would have never had gone back to be “married again”.

It is because the Church has the right to determine the form of the sacrament of matrimony. There are dispensations from canonical form given prior to marriage (but not to two Catholics) and also for two Catholics with radical sanation. In the case of no minister for more than a month celebration without the witness of Catholic clergy, only the couple and two other witnesses is valid.