Is this "defect of canonical form"? HELP!

[JP_Augustine]

Hi all,

Here’s a question which I’m going to be asking my priest in a couple of weeks, but wanted to get the opinion of those of you well-versed in canonical law:

I was originally a Jehovah’s Witness and was baptized as one. From the perspective of the Church, I was “unbaptized”, fortunately taken care of at the last Easter Vigil.

However, before becoming Catholic, I’d been married twice. The first marriage was to a woman who was (I’m virtually certain) baptized Catholic and then nominally became a JW. By “nominally” I mean she was baptized and attended meetings, but never really adopted the faith, per se.

My question is this: Would this marriage classify as “defect of canonical form” from the perspective of the Church, and be annulled as such?

As a follow-on to this question: I have no idea where she is and cannot contact her, and her parents will not speak to me since I am no longer a JW. (Actually, I tried leaving a voice mail – since this marriage occurred 13 years ago – and received a very charitable response that she hopes I “burn in hell” with the rest of us Catholics). My question is this: how can I verify her baptism if I don’t know where she was baptized??

Second question: Since I was married a second time, is this marriage automatically annulled due to a “ligamen” condition?

I’m almost embarrassed to post this, since before my conversion I showed a real lack of regard for what marriage is really all about.

I appreciate any insights you might have into my situation…

Many blessings,
JP Augustine

 

[1ke]

JP Augustine:

Hi all,

Here’s a question which I’m going to be asking my priest in a couple of weeks, but wanted to get the opinion of those of you well-versed in canonical law:

I was originally a Jehovah’s Witness and was baptized as one. From the perspective of the Church, I was “unbaptized”, fortunately taken care of at the last Easter Vigil.

However, before becoming Catholic, I’d been married twice. The first marriage was to a woman who was (I’m virtually certain) baptized Catholic and then nominally became a JW. By “nominally” I mean she was baptized and attended meetings, but never really adopted the faith, per se.

My question is this: Would this marriage classify as “defect of canonical form” from the perspective of the Church, and be annulled as such?

As a follow-on to this question: I have no idea where she is and cannot contact her, and her parents will not speak to me since I am no longer a JW. (Actually, I tried leaving a voice mail – since this marriage occurred 13 years ago – and received a very charitable response that she hopes I “burn in hell” with the rest of us Catholics). My question is this: how can I verify her baptism if I don’t know where she was baptized??

Second question: Since I was married a second time, is this marriage automatically annulled due to a “ligamen” condition?

I’m almost embarrassed to post this, since before my conversion I showed a real lack of regard for what marriage is really all about.

I appreciate any insights you might have into my situation…

Many blessings,
JP Augustine

The short answer is: You need to talk to a canon lawyer. There is a forum on EWTN you might be able to ask your question on. Or, get with your diocesan office and ask the questions.

I am no canon lawyer, but I can give some general info based on what I know.

Since you and wife #1 were married after 1983, when the new code of canon law became effective, and she had made a formal act of leaving the church by being baptized in the JW church, I would say you are not a candidate for a decree of nullity based solely on lack of form. Again, a canon lawyer would know best.

I do know you will have to have both marriages examined. I do know that cooperation is encouraged but not necessary on the part of the ex-spouse. You will be able to proceed without either of them if necessary.

 

[tee_eff_em]

1ke:

I do know you will have to have both marriages examined.

I am also not a Canon Lawyer, but I’m not sure that is the case?

Can. 1085 §1 A person bound by the bond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
§2 Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty.

Doesn’t §2 indicate that any subsequent putative marriage is invalid?

**REPEAT: **Not a Canon Lawyer
tee

 

[Catholic2003]

tee_eff_em:

Doesn’t §2 indicate that any subsequent putative marriage is invalid?

No. The word “lawful” in “it is not thereby lawful to contract …” indicates that the subsequent marriage is made illicit/unlawful, but §2 does not make the subsequent marriage invalid (see canon 10). In fact, §2 does not apply at all to non-Catholics by canon 11.

P.S. Also not a canon lawyer.

 

[Aesq]

Both marriages need to be examined. If the first was invalid due to lack of form then the second does not fall under a ligamen situation. If the first is valid or potentially valid then the second would. Either way both need to be examined.

Get with a Canon lawyer or at least someone well versed in Canon law on these issues. I do not believe that you are going to be able to use anything but a formal petition as to both marriages in your situation, as it is not totally clear how this is going to procede from the start. This is something the tribunal is going to have to sort out I think. However, I am not Canon lawyer, just a regular lawyer going through the tribunal process.

Please contact your Diocese to get a list of Canon lawyers in your area.

 

[JP_Augustine]

Thanks so much for the insight on this…It definitely helps a lot!!

JPA

 

[cameron_lansing]

JP Augustine:

Thanks so much for the insight on this…It definitely helps a lot!!

JPA

Just saw this. I am a canon lawyer. Each and every marriage has to be examined.

The first marriage was to a woman who was (I’m virtually certain) baptized Catholic and then nominally became a JW. By “nominally” I mean she was baptized and attended meetings, but never really adopted the faith, per se. My question is this: Would this marriage classify as “defect of canonical form” from the perspective of the Church, and be annulled as such?

A tribunal would have to look at it and ask further questions. Those kinds of questions are best not responded to by you in a forum, and we are in no position to decide the matter for ourselves.

However, she must have become more than a nominal JW who never adopted that faith since she clearly distinguishes herself from those Catholics she’d like to see roasted. So there may be either a simple lack of form declaration or a “formal” process in your future.

how can I verify her baptism if I don’t know where she was baptized??

There are other means of establishing baptism, and tribunals have means of conducting searches.

Since I was married a second time, is this marriage automatically annulled due to a “ligamen” condition?

No decree of nullity (the more correct term for “annulment”) is an automatic operation of law. It must be established with moral certainty by a competent ecclesiastical judge as the result of a process according to the norms of law and the facts of the cause.

Only a valid marriage can provide the basis of the impediment of ligamen. If your first marriage is declared non existent for lack of form, or declared invalid through a decree of nullity, it would not have presented a valid marriage at the time of the second marriage, and thus would not give the basis for a ligamen. Of course, we don’t know anything else about your second marriage, or your second spouse, especially her freedom to marry. But the tribunal staff will know how to proceed.

However I’m surprised that your marital history wasn’t discussed and resolved before the priest proceeded with your baptism. That fact may have significance in determing some technical aspects about your second marriage, and it may not. But the tribunal will be of assistance.

Just to assure you, if your cases are tried by the tribunal in Detroit, you can be assured about the quality of its staff. I’m happy you’re proceeding with your right to know your marital status. Set embarassment aside. God makes all things new (Isaiah).

 

[JP_Augustine]

cameron_lansing:

Just saw this. I am a canon lawyer. Each and every marriage has to be examined.

A tribunal would have to look at it and ask further questions. Those kinds of questions are best not responded to by you in a forum, and we are in no position to decide the matter for ourselves.

However, she must have become more than a nominal JW who never adopted that faith since she clearly distinguishes herself from those Catholics she’d like to see roasted. So there may be either a simple lack of form declaration or a “formal” process in your future.

There are other means of establishing baptism, and tribunals have means of conducting searches.

No decree of nullity (the more correct term for “annulment”) is an automatic operation of law. It must be established with moral certainty by a competent ecclesiastical judge as the result of a process according to the norms of law and the facts of the cause.

Only a valid marriage can provide the basis of the impediment of ligamen. If your first marriage is declared non existent for lack of form, or declared invalid through a decree of nullity, it would not have presented a valid marriage at the time of the second marriage, and thus would not give the basis for a ligamen. Of course, we don’t know anything else about your second marriage, or your second spouse, especially her freedom to marry. But the tribunal staff will know how to proceed.

However I’m surprised that your marital history wasn’t discussed and resolved before the priest proceeded with your baptism. That fact may have significance in determing some technical aspects about your second marriage, and it may not. But the tribunal will be of assistance.

Just to assure you, if your cases are tried by the tribunal in Detroit, you can be assured about the quality of its staff. I’m happy you’re proceeding with your right to know your marital status. Set embarassment aside. God makes all things new (Isaiah).

Wow…thank you so much for the reply. This has been extremely helpful…

Just to clarify, my second spouse was herself divorced and was a baptized Baptist (sort of redundant, eh?). Don’t know religious affiliation of her ex-spouse, but he may have been baptized non-practicing Catholic, and they were not married in the Church.

Ugh…what messy things our lives can become!

Thank you again for your help…

Blessings,
JP Augustine

 

[JP_Augustine]

cameron_lansing:

However, she must have become more than a nominal JW who never adopted that faith since she clearly distinguishes herself from those Catholics she’d like to see roasted.

Just to clarify (I realized I wasn’t clear in my post): that was the response of her mother, not her.

Haven’t seen my ex-wife for 10 years, but I can guarantee she stopped attending JW meetings at the time of our divorce and hasn’t gone back.

Many thanks again…

JP Augustine

 

[1ke]

tee_eff_em:

I am also not a Canon Lawyer, but I’m not sure that is the case?

Doesn’t §2 indicate that any subsequent putative marriage is invalid?

**REPEAT: **Not a Canon Lawyer
tee

No, if the first marriage is declared null, the second marriage would then need to be evaluated for its validity. Therefore, the whole situation must be evaluated.

 

[cameron_lansing]

As the further elaboration of fact shows, the seemingly simplest case can move in unanticipated directions, and utter clarity is required to determine where. This just kind of reiterates why a tribunal will examine everything. It also explains why its staff make flow charts. Multiple marriages are examined in the order in which they were celebrated, and the marital history of all parties is examined.

So again, I would recall that the tribunal will know how to proceed after some questions are clarified. Its staff will then explain the type or types of cases involved to the petitioner and the priest, deacon or lay minister who assists him to submit it.

In the first marriage, the tribunal will still assess if the first spouse in fact formally defected. We cannot, and we can only speculate here.

In the second marriage, the tribunal will assess the validity of the first marriage of spouse number two in order to assess her freedom for our poster’s second marriage. There are a couple of possible types of case, and the correct path depends on the precise facts of the second spouse’s own first marriage, the issue of her first husband’s obligation to Catholic form (or not), etc.

I should have read the thread title more closely though. A defect of form means that the basic appearance of the Catholic form was follows in that a priest or deacon assisted at the marriage, two witnesses were present, etc., but that something was still missing. It is usually a lack of the faculty by the priest or deacon to witness the marriage. That’s a whole different kind of process. As our canon law profs would say, we don’t want to go there now.

 

[mumto5]

Sorry to disappoint but your first marriage is considered valid. Have been there myself - same churches.

Also, I dout your parent’s in law (ex) told you to burn in hell since JWs don’t believe in hell.

 

[carol_marie]

mumto5:

Sorry to disappoint but your first marriage is considered valid. Have been there myself - same churches.

Also, I dout your parent’s in law (ex) told you to burn in hell since JWs don’t believe in hell.

maybe she meant the “lake of fire?”

 

[JP_Augustine]

mumto5:

Sorry to disappoint but your first marriage is considered valid. Have been there myself - same churches.

Also, I dout your parent’s in law (ex) told you to burn in hell since JWs don’t believe in hell.

Actually, that’s what made me chuckle about her highly abusive voicemail…

But maybe I’m just not up on the “new light” from the Watchtower Society.

 

[1ke]

mumto5:

Sorry to disappoint but your first marriage is considered valid. Have been there myself - same churches.

You cannot make this statement as an all-encompassing generalization. The tribunal will thoroughly examine the marriage. The details of the individual situation are quite relevant, and you cannot know those from what was posted here.

At most you can only speculate that the marriage may be valid. And, it may not be valid.

 

[cameron_lansing]

1ke:

You cannot make this statement as an all-encompassing generalization. The tribunal will thoroughly examine the marriage. The details of the individual situation are quite relevant, and you cannot know those from what was posted here.
At most you can only speculate that the marriage may be valid. And, it may not be valid.

Elegently correct.

 

[mumto5]

1ke:

You cannot make this statement as an all-encompassing generalization. The tribunal will thoroughly examine the marriage. The details of the individual situation are quite relevant, and you cannot know those from what was posted here.

At most you can only speculate that the marriage may be valid. And, it may not be valid.

No, you’re right, I put that badly. What I meant is that the situation with the wife marrying in the Kingdom Hall after having defected from the Catholic church doesn’t itself make the marriage invalid. I was just commenting on that one point, not the entire marriage. I should have added that the whole situation had to be weighed up.