Marriages between Catholics who are married in the Church are considered valid unless proven otherwise.
Not necessarily. IF (and this sounds very unlikely given what you have said) your marriage were to break down and IF you were to get a civil divorce and IF you or your husband decided to then have your marriage investigated by the tribunal, it is possible that the lie could be *considered *in the investigation as one piece of information among many. The lie alone isn’t reason to find the marriage to have been invalid.
Very true.
If in doubt, one could always talk to a priest about the validity of a marriage.
The thing is, despite having slept with your husband before you two were married (which has no bearing on the validity of your marriage, nor in his possible future with the deaconate), it doesn’t change the fact that you lied to him about not having any partners before him. Without that piece of information at the time of his vows, he could rightfully say that he didn’t give full consent. If he thinks that he would have called off the wedding with this piece of information, yes, his priest is correct that he could have the marriage declared invalid.
Maybe, maybe not. There may be many reasons someone may not up and leave immediately after discovering the truth. Only one example would be children. Another example would be that he needed time to churn on it. And we don’t know what’s been going on during that year. Just because he was there, doesn’t mean he disregarded it and that it was all good. I agree she should speak with a priest.
He can’t “have the marriage annulled”. It doesn’t work that way. After a divorce, he could start the process to have the marriage investigated. Withholding information such as this would only be one piece of what the tribunal would look at IF the priest or advocate believes that there is likely a defect in consent.
I doubt very much having sex with his wife before they were married will have any bearing on his call to the diaconate. And he wouldn’t be divorcing her because she wasn’t a virgin at the time of the marriage, but because she lied/withheld that information from him before they were married.Very true.
Moreover, if a man were to be discerning a call to the diaconate, and divorced his wife because she wasn’t a virgin on their wedding day – when the two of them had had sex before marriage! – something tells me that the diocese wouldn’t be too keen on keeping him in the diaconate program very long. Just sayin’…
Lack of consent. One can’t fully consent to marry someone if the other party withholds information from them that would otherwise make them reconsider going through with the marriage. The Church is very serious about both parties giving 100% consent. One can’t give consent if they lack information that allows them to decide whether or not to consent.
Character at the time, or maturity at the time of vows. Someone who withholds information from a future spouse (because they are afraid the person will call off the wedding) lacks the maturity to get married. Plus, the intent on her part was to withhold the information from him because she knew it might change his mind about the wedding.
Many people, especially in my mother and grandmother’s generation, would not marry someone with a previous sexual history. It’s not so much that important today as we get married older, and more secular, etc. But it’s an important piece of information to disclose. You definitely have no business leading your future spouse to believe you’ve had no previous sexual history if in fact you have.In other words, he would be saying that he was deceived about the fact that she was the kind of girl who would have sex before marriage? When he, himself, had sex with her before marriage?
What do you mean “it doesn’t work that way”? If her husband wants a divorce and wants to apply for an annulment he will do this: He will file and get a divorce (because it’s a requirement in order to apply for a decree of nullity), and then he will apply for the decree of nullity and start the process. They will look at everything.
When one gets married, the don’t consent to anything their partner did or didn’t do before the wedding. They are consenting, despite whatever their partner did or didn’t do before the wedding. Both parties must give full disclosure in order for both parties to freely consent.
Withholding any information that would make the other party break off the engagement affects the validity of the marriage – because the person was lied to and would have otherwise not consented to marry the person. Let’s face it, she didn’t tell him because she knew he might have broken off the engagement with that information. That’s deliberately withholding information that would help him to formulate his decision to marry or not marry. That’s a consent issue.
Yes, but that’s very different from what I was replying to where you said he could have the marriage declared invalid. All he (the husband) can do is to start the process. He can’t have anything declared.
Maybe. We are only hearing this third hand and only part of the story. When the facts are all on the table after a separation and divorce, it may not even be the same pastor. In fact, the priest who allegedly said this may not even be the pastor.
Think about what this means. Most couples, especially those getting married later in life, don’t sit down and do a general confession to their future spouse of all of their past activities. It’s certainly not part of the marriage preparation process. If “full disclosure” of nonmaterial information is what makes a marriage valid, almost no marriages would be valid.
I see where you are going but I think it’s a stretch.
So… divorcing the woman whom you married in 1995, because she had sex with you before marriage – but wasn’t a virgin when she did – and because this now ticks you off? Yeah… vocations departments would completely understand that, and would give you a big ol’ thumbs-up for that decision to divorce…
Fair enough. And in this case, the knowledge is “my wife wasn’t a virgin on our wedding day.” Here’s a clue-by-four: he already knew this about her, on his wedding day. This isn’t something that’s new knowledge. For this to affect his consent, he would have to claim that he wouldn’t have married her if he knew she wasn’t a virgin. This is a guy who had premarital sex with her. You’re gonna suggest – with a straight face – that this is a reasonable objection? Puh-leeze…
I don’t know how old you are, but stop and think: this is a woman who says that, in 1991, her boyfriend thought she was a virgin; and before they got married, in 1995, they’d already had sex. This is 1995, not 1915, or even 1945. This might have held for your grandma’s or mom’s generation… but not for the generation coming of age in the 1990s. Would they have liked to marry virgins? Perhaps; but they have no right to this expectation if they had sex with their ‘virgin’ before marriage… and then at marriage, balked because their fiancee wasn’t a virgin. That’s just ludicrous.
And, I’d assert, you have no right to claim shock at the lack of sexual purity from your spouse if you’ve consented to sexual relations with her prior to marriage… :sad_yes:
You should both go together & discuss this situation with a Priest who would be able to give you advisement.
If certain serious information was intentionally withheld to ensure a marriage, then the other spouse would (unwittingly) be consenting to marry a person who actually doesn’t exist, resulting in defective consent on his part.**Canon 1098 – **A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.
So this is good news. That you and your husband are strong Catholics.