faithhopelove:
An annulment process is underway for my marriage. My ex-husband (I say ex because civily we are no longer married) has told me that he plans on stating that he has never been married if and when our marriage is declared null. . . . What do you think is the appropriate response to the question of have you been married if the marriage has been declared null? It is dishonest to say that you are single and not mention the previous relationship/marriage
As noted already, unless the person as a seriously potential spouse has a right to know more, you need not say much to the casual inquirer who knows you were married. It could be a simple as, “Although I was married before, a process of the Catholic Church has determined I am free to marry again. A Catholic priest or deacon could explain that process to you, if you are interested.” Also as noted, you are free to enter into a deeper discussion at your own discretion, as in a case of evangelizing. The other posters have treated other situations rather well, I think. Stay out of bars, though.
Let me address your ex’s view though.
The concealment of a prior marriage from a potential spouse, even though determined to be invalid, has moral and maybe canonical implications. If he seeks to marry again in the Church, the prior marriage and decree of nullity will be evidenced on the annotated baptismal certificate. Many civil jurisdictions ask for and then identify the number of times a person was previously married on their licenses, applications, or certificates.
But evaluating the prospect of marriage, which is a partnership of the whole of life, requires truthful self-revelation by both parties who contemplate it. Withholding information about one’s past in such an important aspect of life to a potential spouse undermines trust, justice and discernment. Further, assuming what another person wants, because we ourselves want something, is not reflective of the kinds of communication skills needed for the proper deliberation of marriage.
Sometimes, withholding this kind of information is used as a circumstantial proof in evaluating whether someone lacked due discretion and consequently gave invalid matrimonial consent (canon 1095, 2º). There are also certain grounds of error, fraud, and conditional consent (canons 1097-1098 and canon 1102) in which this could be a major issue in a nullity trial. Concealing a prior marriage has been the basis for nullity at the Roman Rota, in light of total proofs, more than once.
. . . and the Church declared that it was a natural marriage insted of a scramental marriage. . . . The Church’s position is not that the marriage never existed, but rather that it was only a civil marriage, not a sacramental or covenent marriage.
Describing what a decree of nullity is hard for everyone. May I give my preference and reasons here?
“A decree of nullity is a declaration that a given marriage was not valid according to divine law or Church law.” To avoid verbal gynmastics, I recommend avoiding making any distinctions beyond that point. All marriages involve the matrimonial covenant, so they are all “convenant marriages.” All marriages are governed by natural law, and hence all are “natural marriages,” but the term is not in the code nor is it used in canonical discussion though.
However, marriage between the baptized is also a sacrament, so only in such a case would we speak of “sacramental marriage.” A decree of nullity does not declare in any way that such a marriage was a “natural marriage” as opposed to a “sacramental marriage.” It only means the marriage was invalid, period. If it was invalid, consequently it was not a sacrament either.
The marriage involving at least one unbaptized person is not a sacramental marriage, although it is also a matrimonial covenant. The 1983 code does not give us a title for this, but canon 1015 §3 of the 1917 code called a validly celebrated marriage of the unbaptized a “legitimate marriage” (matrimonium legitimum). To avoid confusion and maybe ruffled feathers, I wouldn’t use this term outside of a legal discussion. Canonists use it to describe a mariage in which at least one party in a validly celebrated marriage was unbaptized.
One advantage of not going too far is that we don’t foster the misconception that non “sacramental marriages” don’t require decrees of nullity (or privilege of the faith) in order for either or both of the parties to marry in the Catholic Church following divorce. You’ve probably heard it too, “but they were Protestants/Hindus, etc., so he/she doesn’t need an ‘annulment’.” To marry in the Catholic Church, yes, of course.
