Is This Grounds for an Annulment/Invalid Marriage?

[lawrence11]

Hi,
If a Catholic marries a Protestant, but the Protestant spouse does not agree to raise the children in the Catholic Church, would this marriage be valid? I’ve heard it is potential grounds for annulment if the spouse doesn’t agree.

 

[Daniel27]

Have a chat with a priest, and if it is grounds, he’ll take you through the process.

Can. 1124 n Marriage between two baptized persons, one of whom was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism, and the other a member of a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church, cannot be celebrated without the express permission of the competent authority.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

Can. 1126 It is for the conference of bishops to establish the method in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, must be made and to define the manner in which they are to be established in the external forum and the non-Catholic party informed about them.

 

[lawrence11]

Oh ok this is very helpful, thank you. I appreciate that it is from Church teaching and not opinion!
One question: what exactly is “express permission of the competent authority.” Would that be the parish priest, the Bishop or who?

It seems from the above that it definitely would be grounds for annulment, though.

Edit: Hmmm, so I just re-read it and it states that the Catholic party has to declare xyz. Not the Protestant party. So even if the Protestant party didn’t agree to raise the children Catholic, but the Catholic party did, so long as the Protestant spouse was aware of that fact, the marriage would be valid?

 

[1ke]

If a Catholic marries a Protestant, but the Protestant spouse does not agree to raise the children in the Catholic Church, would this marriage be valid?

Yes. It is valid. Or at least it’s not invalid for that reason alone.

The non Catholic does not make any promise regarding the rearing of the children in the faith. It is the Catholic party who makes the promise and the non-Catholic is informed of it.

This is a serious topic that needs extensive discussion before marriage, and unfortunately one that causes a lot of friction in many marriages once children actually do come along.

It’s one of the reason I advise against mixed marriage. And if a person is engaged and the non Catholic actively refuses to commit to allowing the Catholic to raise the children Catholic, then the Catholic needs to walk away. It’s the prudent thing to do.

But no, it isn’t something that makes a marriage invalid per se.

 

[1ke]

One question: what exactly is “ express permission of the competent authority. ” Would that be the parish priest, the Bishop or who?

It would typically be the bishop.

But lack of permission for mixed marriage does not make a marriage invalid, only illicit.

It seems from the above that it definitely would be grounds for annulment, though.

No. This isn’t correct. The non Catholic makes no promises. They are informed of the Catholic party’s obligations.

Hmmm, so I just re-read it and it states that the Catholic party has to declare xyz. Not the Protestant party

Yep.

So even if the Protestant party didn’t agree to raise the children Catholic, but the Catholic party did, so long as the Protestant spouse was aware of that fact, the marriage would be valid?

Yes.

 

[Daniel27]

But lack of permission for mixed marriage does not make a marriage invalid, only illicit.

What is the difference between a marriage that is invalid vs one that is illicit.

It’s one of the reason I advise against mixed marriage. And if a person is engaged and the non Catholic actively refuses to commit to allowing the Catholic to raise the children Catholic, then the Catholic needs to walk away. It’s the prudent thing to do.

Also, Fr. Mike Schmitz did a great video on this precise topic

 

[1ke]

What is the difference between a marriage that is invalid vs one that is illicit.

Invalid: not a valid marriage

Illicit: a valid marriage that was celebrated illicitly (in violation of a rubric or law).

 

[Gorgias]

If a Catholic marries a Protestant, but the Protestant spouse does not agree to raise the children in the Catholic Church, would this marriage be valid?

Lawrence,

What folks have said to you here is spot-on! One additional thought for you:

Prior to 1983, the non-Catholic spouse was asked to promise that the children would be raised Catholic. However, in 1983, a new Code of Canon Law came into effect. In the new version, the requirement to have the non-Catholic spouse make promises was removed.

If I were a betting man, I’d guess that the folks that told you that “not agreeing to raise the kids as Catholics is grounds for annulment” are folks who married prior to 1983. They were right, 38 years ago, but not since.

 

[lawrence11]

Ah, this is why I was confused. I had heard that the non-Catholic spouse had to agree to raise the children Catholic. Thanks for helping to clear things up.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The non Catholic does not make any promise regarding the rearing of the children in the faith. It is the Catholic party who makes the promise and the non-Catholic is informed of it.

This is a serious topic that needs extensive discussion before marriage, and unfortunately one that causes a lot of friction in many marriages once children actually do come along.

It’s one of the reason I advise against mixed marriage. And if a person is engaged and the non Catholic actively refuses to commit to allowing the Catholic to raise the children Catholic, then the Catholic needs to walk away. It’s the prudent thing to do.

Maybe I’m just thick, but I cannot comprehend why in the world a faithful Catholic would marry anyone — whether an intransigent non-Catholic or a not-even-so-much-as-lukewarm Catholic — who would not even acquiesce, far less cooperate, in the Catholic upbringing of their children. “Loving each other and wanting to be together” is not the primary purpose of marriage, bearing and educating children is (if nature allows that). There are three-and-one-half billion people of one’s opposite gender on the planet, and of those who are free to marry, surely anyone wishing marriage (assuming they are called to it) could find someone who wouldn’t pose these problems.

Isn’t marriage and child-rearing hard enough as it is, without just borrowing trouble? Marrying someone where there is this kind of fundamental religious conflict — and that’s what it is — is something even a secular relationships counselor would advise against.

 

[Anesti33]

So to explain the tautologies, “invalid” means having no effect. An invalid attempt at marriage means there is no marriage at all. This would normally be caused by a diriment impediment that exists when consent is exchanged.

“Illicit” means “illegal” so if a priest fails to obtain permission or dispensation for something, he’s celebrated the wedding illegally, which reflects nothing on the couple. A wedding celebrated illicitly can still be valid.

This, by the way, rarely ever happens, because priests are meticulous about obtaining those self-same permissions, so don’t go second-guessing the celebrants about this kind of thing.

 

[1ke]

“Illicit” means “illegal” so if a priest fails to obtain permission or dispensation for something, he’s celebrated the wedding illegally, which reflects nothing on the couple. A wedding celebrated illicitly can still be valid.

If he fails to get a dispensation, the marriage is likely invalid. For example dispensation from form, dispensation from disparity of cult. Both of those would render the marriage in valid, not merely illicit.

So, it depends on what it is that a priest fails to do, or what a priest does as to whether it is merely illicit or it also renders the attempted marriage invalid.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Sometimes there are more important things in life than “want”.

 

[acanonlawyer]

If I were a betting man, I’d guess that the folks that told you that “not agreeing to raise the kids as Catholics is grounds for annulment” are folks who married prior to 1983. They were right, 38 years ago, but not since.

Well, if we want to be technical…and why else am I here, other than to be technical…not agreeing to raise children Catholic would not have been grounds for annulment then, either. If the person did not make that agreement, then the bishop would (probably) not grant the necessary dispensation (for disparity of cult). If that was the case but the wedding went forward nevertheless, the marriage would be invalid because of the lack of a dispensation, not because of the person’s refusal to make that promise.

Dan

 

[Gorgias]

Dan,

I was thinking more in terms of having made the promise, but with fingers crossed - reneging on the promise or never really intending it in the first place. That was what Lawrence’s question made me think of, anyway - deception during the preparation…

 

[acanonlawyer]

In that case, you could get into in invalidly granted dispensation. More technicalities going on there, of course.

Dan

 

[dochawk]

ooohhhh . . . technical exceptions to technicalities . . .