Marriage and Divorce outside the Church

[mandajane]

Here’s a hypothetical question my friends and I are discussing, I thought I’d throw it over here and see what responses I get.

If you fall away from the Church, get married outside it, then when you come back to the Church, divorce your non-Catholic spouse, is the separation or divorce a sin?

I don’t think so, because as a Catholic you are not free to marry outside the Church, so all you are really guilty of is fornication with your ex. Others are saying that all divorce is a sin. I know there are people here much wiser and better read than I. So what do you think?

 

[1ke]

Divorce is a grave offense against the sixth commandment. There are times when it can be tolerated-- to protect the other spouse, children, or property.

A Catholic married outside the Church who returns should convalidate their marriage with all haste.

If the marriage has broken down prior to their return to the church and the couple divorces, then one or both of them may be culpable for the actions that led to the breakdown and separation.

 

[chris138]

A baptized catholic must be married in the church(or have permisssion from the bishop to marry somewhere else) or the marriage isn’t valid in the eyes of the church. So you are correct there was no marriage…(I did this–and when I did get married in the Church, the priest did have to file some paperwork but it was quick and easy, nothing like the annulment process). Catholics have to have the proper form which is to be married in the church, by a priest.

Confession would be needed for fornication…becasue in the eyes of God the couple is not married.

If two protestants are married/divorced the marriage would be presumed valid and have to go thru the annulment process to remarry if coverted to the church.

God bless,
chris

 

[mamaslo]

sin is sin.

any time we mistreat someone else it is a sin. divorce, regardless, causes a myriad of troubling situations…and sin is involved with our responses if we are not careful.

I have found this an interesting question in my life as well. considering my story. like 1ke said, make haste to marry in the church but I wonder since it was done all done backwards if the sin is not the divorce but the disobedience and turning your heart from God in the first place to attempt a marriage outside the church.

I think that we can be guilty of sin regardless of whether or not it isn’t a sacrament. We are all created in God’s image.

You still have to go through the short form annulment to investigate.

I know it sounds like I am talking around this, but look at the process the church has if it were a valid attempt and broke up as opposed to invalid attempt. the valid one has a long process to prove. the invalid just needs to prove lack of form.

Was there sin committed toward the other person to get to the point of a legal divorce? like 1Ke said…one or both would be more or less culpable to get to that point…

divorce is a death regardless of wether it is from a valid or invalid marriage sacrament.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

When does the Catholic **tolerate **divorce?

 

[1ke]

When does the Catholic **tolerate **divorce?

See canons 1151 through 1155 in canon law-- Separation With the Bond Remaining, summarized in this paragraph of the Catechism:

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

 

[mamaslo]

(name removed by moderator),
I have heard otherwise, but since I am not any authority, I do not want to speak absolutely.

I have not heard that the church considers all marriages as valid under canon law. I have heard that there is no marriage existing until a catholic either has permission to marry outside the church or marries within the church…according to the rules.

 

[1ke]

A lack of form does not enjoy the favor of the law because there is no **doubt **regarding its validity. Canon 1060 is referring to cases in which doubt exists.

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

The lack of form is an administrative process, not a tribunal nullity case. This administrative process exists in the US and Canada, but does not exist elsewhere-- for example Europe.

It is not a nullity case at all.

 

[mamaslo]

but that is a bit confusing if a catholic knows they must marry in the church, and get permission etc…then they would know upon their own investigation, that they could remarry if divorce should happen…even if that isn’t what they had intended from the start.

the Lack of Form nullity would cause a delay but wouldn’t be proven valid…and the person knows it. (or would find out when they investigate).

 

[1ke]

Well, that is the training I received from our Vicar General so I guess he is incorrect too.

NOT.

Regarding Europe-- it is absolutely true that an administrative process analogous to the US tribunal process does not exist. If you have no marriage on your sacramental records, you were not married, end of story. The priest handles this in the premarital investigation. It does NOT go to any tribunal.

 

[mamaslo]

 

[mamaslo]

This is actually something decent to discuss…no need to get upset.

 

[1ke]

Not necessarily. It may all be in our individual understanding of terminology and the finer points of this distincition between administrative and juridical acts.

In your diocese, as with most all in the US including mine, lack of form paperwork goes through a review by the tribunal. But it is not a formal case or a juridic process that declares a marriage null.

Nor is the review by the tribunal required at all. Quoting from cameron_lansing (a long time poster who no longer posts here but who is a canon lawyer:

The prenuptial investigation suffices in law to accomplish this (see Pontifical Commission on the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, 26 June 1984 in AAS, LXXVI, 1984, 746-747)

Some dioceses require that an authority other than the priest or deacon declare the existence of the lack of form. Having a tribunal or another curial office do the investigation is done as a precaution.

This is an example of what I have written above. The involvement of the tribunal in a lack of form situation is NOT required. They don’t use this process at all in Europe.

You must look at the universal law of the Church to understand that what you do in your diocesan tribunal in the case of lack of form paperwork is NOT an annulment case.

The document referenced above (Pontifical Commission on the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, 26 June 1984 in AAS, LXXVI, 1984, 746-747) clarifies that a lack of form case does not enjoy the favor of the law outlined in canon 1060 and the prenuptial investigation of canons 1066 and 1067 suffice to establish a lack of form and freedom to marry.

The investigation your tribunal does is an administrative action and not a judicial one. It is not a declaration of nullity. A lack of form marriage does not enjoy the legal presumption of validity in canon law.

By all means ask your Vicar General about it.

 

[revert_jen]

The investigation your tribunal does is an administrative action and not a judicial one. It is not a declaration of nullity. A lack of form marriage does not enjoy the legal presumption of validity in canon law.

At least in my diocese, I have to agree. When I submitted my paperwork, I submitted a “Petition for a decree of Absence of Form.” What I got back was actually just a letter. I don’t know what you get back with an actual annulment. All I sent was a recent (original) copy of my baptismal certificate and copies of the marriage license and divorce decree. No depositions or anything.

HOWEVER, looking around canon law (a little learning is a dangerous thing), it looks like even a “Lack of form” petition could go the tribunal for judicial action if there is some question about the validity of the paperwork submitted, and the aggrieved party could still appeal. I doubt it happens really often, but it looks like it could.

Just guessing.

–Jen

 

[1ke]

HOWEVER, looking around canon law (a little learning is a dangerous thing), it looks like even a “Lack of form” petition could go the tribunal for judicial action if there is some question about the validity of the paperwork submitted, and the aggrieved party could still appeal. I doubt it happens really often, but it looks like it could.

Right. A decree of nullity is what a judge (or judges) of a tribunal issues after a judicial process (an ordinary contentious process of the nullity of marriage) in a sentence.

And here we have a distinction between:

total lack of form: administrative process. does not even enjoy the appearance or legal presumption of being valid

other things that may contribute to defect of form: Proper form could be lacking for other reasons as when a priest or deacon lacked the faculty to assist, or two witnesses were not present, or possibly when people tinker with the wording of the vows, or other things. This would then become a full tribunal investigation and would be a nullity case as a sentence is reached through a trial.

So a defect in form involves a judicial process, and a total lack of form involves an administrative process