Marriage, annulment, validity, and Schrodinger's cat

[jmcrae]

A person is in their third marriage. She wants to join the Catholic Church with her husband (I just have to give some gender here, nothing personal).

All things being equal, someone in a third marriage could easily be found incapable of contracting a valid marriage altogether, and the finding of her two previous marriages to be invalid would not automatically mean that her current marriage is valid, nor that it could be convalidated in the Church, especially if she is found to be emotionally immature.

In order to do so, she applies for an annulment for her previous marriages. For the first marriage, there is a presumption of validity.

They have to investigate the first marriage before they make any assumptions about the second marriage.

If the first marriage is found to be not valid, then they have to assume the second marriage was valid, until they prove otherwise. If the first marriage is proven to be valid, then the case proceeds no further; they don’t make any assumptions at all about the second marriage, either way.

For the second marriage, there is a presumption of validity, despite the fact it is a logically impossibility that both are valid.

The second marriage doesn’t even come under investigation until the first one is proven to be not valid.

Yet for the third marriage, there is a presumption of invalidity, as they are not able to be received into full communion because of being in an invalid marriage. However, other than to accommodate canon law, there is no logical reason to assume the second marriage is valid and the third is not. There is a practical reason to proceed this way. It might be argued there is a pastoral reason to do the opposite though.

Every marriage after the one most likely to be valid is assumed to be invalid until the originals are proven to be not valid. They are investigated in chronological order.

If all of the previous marriages are found to be not valid, then the current marriage can be convalidated in the Church.

Now if this same couple know their third marriage to be valid, they still must wait until the Church makes this determination. Can they know this? Sometimes they can, at least with all the certainty that one can know anything. Let us say the first marriage was contracted with a one year pre-nuptial, and after a year they mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage. That is certainly not valid marriage.

And would take less than a week to prove at the Marriage Tribunal; all she’d have to do is produce the paperwork. They wouldn’t even have to interview anyone except her.

Let us say the second was an open marriage where both parties were unfaithful by common agreement, full knowledge and sometimes involved “swinging”. That is with certainty not valid.

Again, easy to prove, and would probably take less than a week at the Marriage Tribunal.

Then the woman had a spiritual conversion and married in a Church wedding.

Now when one considers the objective realities, there is no state of sin. The woman was married with the full blessing of her pastor who considers this part of her conversion, so there is not subjective sin.

In this case, there is nothing doctrinally that would prevent them from joining the Church and receiving communion. The practicality of the matter can be debated, but it is no contradiction of any doctrine.

In this case, there would be very little doubt, and the Tribunal would certainly rule in her favour.

 

[pnewton]

All things being equal, someone in a third marriage could easily be found incapable of contracting a valid marriage altogether, and the finding of her two previous marriages to be invalid would not automatically mean that her current marriage is valid, nor that it could be convalidated in the Church, especially if she is found to be emotionally immature.

The current marriage might not be valid. However, the Church does not delay entrance for those in their first and only marriage. Validity is assumed. This too might be one thing that bears examination. At minimum, there is inconsistency in assuming validity here and invalidity there.

And would take less than a week to prove at the Marriage Tribunal; all she’d have to do is produce the paperwork. They wouldn’t even have to interview anyone except her. …Again, easy to prove, and would probably take less than a week at the Marriage Tribunal.

Such a fast track especially for those coming into the Church would be one way canon law could be adapted. As it is now, these “simple” decisions still take months or years. Yes, I know how the tribunal would rule as does this couple, the pastor, etc. However, it still is a very long process. It does not have to be. It is not theologically required, as the Church’s authority to bind and loose is not being evoked.

 

[YADA]

Yes I am well aware of the “Shattered Faith: A Woman’s Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage (Pantheon)” and the overturn of the Rota … I also know that she is the one who filed for divorce rather then stay legally civilly married - thus she was the one who even opened that door to make an annulment application possible. As far as the Kennedy’s go - they are not a stronghold public example of faithful Catholocism - as even Ms Rauch Kennedy’s son is Pro-Choice and for Gay marriage … views I am sure he found in is home life … so much for marriage and Christian values

I personally know of a Lutheran gentleman who was married to a Lutheran in a Lutheran Church and ceremony … who later divorced … when that marriage was submitted for review - our Archdiocesan Tribunal found the marriage valid and sacramental - no positive annulment decision was made … its the facts presented in individual cases that matter to Tribunals.

I thought the discussion was about annulments … you threw out 60,000 as a number - like those are all Catholic/Catholic marriages … **my point **- which you never acknowledge - is that many of those marriages being reviewed took place totally outside of a Catholic Context … they did not involve **any **Catholic - not as one of the two being married, not a priest, not a Catholic Marriage Preparation course nor a Catholic ceremony… Not one aspect of the marriage which has ended in divorce being presented to the Tribunal was Catholic …

So - to be perfectly clear - what you are saying is that you are surprised that the marriage between an atheist and a non-practicing Christian performed by a Justice of the Peace that ended in divorce and years later comes before Catholic Tribunal would be found not to be a Sacramental marriage …

The 60,000 number - without much greater details as I noted in a previous post - really is meaningless …

The real problem is not the number of annulments - the real problem is the breakdown of the moral fiber of the country that is responsible for the breakdown of the family which leads to divorce n the first place … co-habitation before marriage, birth control/abortion, etc … is it any wonder that people are found to enter into marriage with defective understanding of the Sacramental nature of marriage? And which leads to affirmative annulment decisions?

And you still fail to address what I said about the cases that make up the 60,000 …

You brought the Kennedy’s into the picture … I stated and hold firm that if I want to look for examples of Christian marriage and fidelity to Catholic teaching - I would not look to any of the Kennedy’s - and this Ms Rauch Kennedy was the one who filed for divorce civilly which opened the door for the process to flow - so much for the permanency of the marriage at least in the civil context …

So what say you about the non-Catholic marriages that are included in your 60,000 …

 

[Tomdstone]

And you still fail to address what I said about the cases that make up the 60,000 …

You brought the Kennedy’s into the picture … I stated and hold firm that if I want to look for examples of Christian marriage and fidelity to Catholic teaching - I would not look to any of the Kennedy’s - and this Ms Rauch Kennedy was the one who filed for divorce civilly which opened the door for the process to flow - so much for the permanency of the marriage at least in the civil context …

So what say you about the non-Catholic marriages that are included in your 60,000 …

I gave you an example of a non-Catholic married to a Catholic. And your response was that Ms Rauch Kennedy’s son is Pro-Choice and for Gay marriage. I still don’t see where that has to do with the topic of the thread or her opposition to the Catholic annulment process.

 

[Tomdstone]

I do not know which thread you spun this from, but I asked these same questions a few weeks ago. So far, no one has addressed this difficulty. Yes, it is a logical contradiction. If a marriage is invalid, it always was invalid before and after the declaration of nullity. All the talk about presumption and good faith do not change this fact, or address the dilemma you present. These are practical matters that are used because of the Schrodinger’s cat problem. Another strange twist is that if one is living with someone in an invalid marriage (even though it is presumed to be valid) you would have an objectively sinful situation that could never be construed as a real or subjective sin because of the good faith involved. Therefore, since the Church allows communion based on the subjective good faith in a presumed valid (but invalid) marriage, could she not also allow this in others?

There appear to be a lot of difficulties associated with annulments. For example, on the SAVE OUR SACRAMENT site, they list 25 difficulties they have found in the Annulment system, from the perspective of almost 700 Respondents with Save Our Sacrament:
saveoursacrament.org/Facts.html

 

[Vico]

Man, I tried to type this post last night that evaporated when I tried to post it. It was a long and convoluted situation I was going to present as a thought experiment, but the CAF goblins got to it. Let me try again.

A person is in their third marriage. She wants to join the Catholic Church with her husband (I just have to give some gender here, nothing personal). In order to do so, she applies for an annulment for her previous marriages. For the first marriage, there is a presumption of validity. For the second marriage, there is a presumption of validity, despite the fact it is a logically impossibility that both are valid. Yet for the third marriage, there is a presumption of invalidity, as they are not able to be received into full communion because of being in an invalid marriage. However, other than to accommodate canon law, there is no logical reason to assume the second marriage is valid and the third is not. There is a practical reason to procede this way. It might be argued there is a pastoral reason to do the opposite though.

Now if this same couple know their third marriage to be valid, they still must wait until the Church makes this determination. Can they know this? Sometimes they can, at least with all the certainty that one can know anything. Let us say the first marriage was contracted with a one year pre-nuptial, and after a year they mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage. That is certainly not valid marriage. Let us say the second was an open marriage where both parties were unfaithful by common agreement, full knowledge and sometimes involved “swinging”. That is with certainty not valid. Then the woman had a spiritual conversion and married in a Church wedding.

Now when one considers the objective realities, there is no state of sin. The woman was married with the full blessing of her pastor who considers this part of her conversion, so there is not subjective sin.

In this case, there is nothing doctrinally that would prevent them from joining the Church and receiving communion. The practicality of the matter can be debated, but it is no contradiction of any doctrine.

Thought experiment,

• first marriage (invalid consent - not proven), not Catholic,
• second marriage (invalid consent - not proven), not Catholic,
• third marriage, not Catholic.
• both baptized non-Catholics, unknown about the first and second spouses.

You wrote: “there is no logical reason to assume the second marriage is valid and the third is not.”

All should be presumed valid until proved not. The Church believes in only one valid marriage relationship at a time and the Church does not recognize civil divorce of a valid marriage. So the non-Catholic marriages must face the same scrutiny as a Catholic marriage would and be declared invalid before another marriage is allowed in the Church. I believe that the Church would give Confirmation at the coming into full Communion. It could be found that none of the three are valid. Also if one or more of the spouses were unbaptized, then the valid the natural marriage could be dissolved using the favor of the faith.

 

[YADA]

I gave you an example of a non-Catholic married to a Catholic. And your response was that Ms Rauch Kennedy’s son is Pro-Choice and for Gay marriage. I still don’t see where that has to do with the topic of the thread or her opposition to the Catholic annulment process.

They were married in a Catholic Ceremony - with one assumes all the proper dispensations … even if one was not Catholic … so it does not address the many cases where the original marriage had no “Catholic” component what so ever - Zip, Nada, None

I gave you an example of two Lutherans whose marriage was also upheld …

Your use of the 60,000 annulments implied that there was something wrong with how the cases were decided and implied that this reflected on Catholic Marriages in general and on the conundrum of Catholics not being able to discern the Sacramental nature of their own marriages …

In point of fact many of those annulment decisions were for failed marriages contracted between two atheists by some guy who got his faculties to perform the ceremony off the internet a few days before performing the ceremony …

Do you doubt the decision that such marriages are not Sacramentally valid?

How does an affirmative decision in such a case cause an active practicing Catholic who married in good faith, who lives the precepts of the Church and who loves their spouse wonder if they are validly married or not? It seems to me you could think back to your vows, the conditions that existed at the time and what you have learned about each other since, and even have a discussion - openly - with your spouse and place your mind at rest.

 

[pnewton]

It could be found that none of the three are valid. Also if one or more of the spouses were unbaptized, then the valid the natural marriage could be dissolved using the favor of the faith.

I have never heard of the Church considering the validity of a marriage of someone coming into the Church who were married once, but in another denomination. As I have never faced this, is this something that happens. Do people that are never divorce and married really subject to the same process for their one and current marriage?

 

[YADA]

There appear to be a lot of difficulties associated with annulments. For example, on the SAVE OUR SACRAMENT site, they list 25 difficulties they have found in the Annulment system, from the perspective of almost 700 Respondents with Save Our Sacrament:
saveoursacrament.org/Facts.html

And this web site also leaves the impression that each and every one of those annulments involved a marriage conducted in the Catholic Church … when many of the annulments involved two people who married with no concept of the Sacramental aspect of the marriage -

Do not get me wrong - There are problems … but the issue is not the number of annulments - that is a symptom of the number of divorces which is a symptom of the breakdown of values and morality …

 

[Tomdstone]

And you still fail to address what I said about the cases that make up the 60,000 …
So what say you about the non-Catholic marriages that are included in your 60,000 …

The pro-Sacrament of Matrimony site: SAVE OUR SACRAMENT has a discussion about this. Please see:
NON-CATHOLICS ARE VICTIMS TOO by
Carole R. Bishop. According to the article: “Most non-Catholics should resent being told that the vows they once spoke were spoken falsely, rendering the bond invalid. Children of non-Catholic marriages have just as much right to be offspring of a valid union recognized by their God in the sight of whom the couple chose to marry.”

saveoursacrament.org/ → other denominations
Also please read: A Daughters reflection in which a young lady tells how the Catholic annulment process undertaken by her father has ruined her life.

 

[Vico]

I have never heard of the Church considering the validity of a marriage of someone coming into the Church who were married once, but in another denomination. As I have never faced this, is this something that happens. Do people that are never divorce and married really subject to the same process for their one and current marriage?

Here is one answer that will help, from CAF Quick Questions:

catholic.com/quickquestions/do-these-converts-need-to-have-their-marriage-convalidated

 

[pnewton]

Here is one answer that will help, from CAF Quick Questions:

catholic.com/quickquestions/do-these-converts-need-to-have-their-marriage-convalidated

That situation involved those previously married. I not that that situation says the marriage would not be convalidated. You said, “It could be found that none of the three are valid.” It could not be found that the current marriage is invalid if it is never examined, as this answer suggests.

 

[Vico]

That situation involved those previously married. I not that that situation says the marriage would not be convalidated. You said, “It could be found that none of the three are valid.” It could not be found that the current marriage is invalid if it is never examined, as this answer suggests.

It would be found invalid if one of the others was found to be valid.

 

[pnewton]

It would be found invalid if one of the others was found to be valid.

That would be a much difference situation than the one I gave. I was addressing two previous invalid marriages. In any case, all three would not be found invalid. After the Church realized the first two were invalid, then the third would not be examined and no convalidation required, according to the answer you linked.

 

[Vico]

That would be a much difference situation than the one I gave. I was addressing two previous invalid marriages. In any case, all three would not be found invalid. After the Church realized the first two were invalid, then the third would not be examined and no convalidation required, according to the answer you linked.

There is an assumption that the tribunal will find proof of the invalidity of both of the previous marriages. The prior written agreement, or affidavit of it, should provide proof for the first. For the second, they need a witness that at the time of celebration, open marriage was the intent. So if an open marriage intention was known publicly at the time of the celebration, and not some time later, then a witness may be available. If consent was invalid privately, at the time of celebration, it could have been corrected privately to become valid, even after the celebration.
CIC

**Can. 1101 **

§1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.
§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

 

[pnewton]

There is an assumption that the tribunal will find proof of the invalidity of both of the previous marriages. The prior written agreement, or affidavit of it, should provide proof for the first. For the second, they need a witness that at the time of celebration, open marriage was the intent. So if an open marriage intention was known publicly at the time of the celebration, and not some time later, then a witness may be available. If consent was invalid privately, at the time of celebration, it could have been corrected privately to become valid, even after the celebration.

I do not think so. The use of the word* “proof”* misunderstands that what is really presented is evidence. Proof, as in absolute proof, is not needed. They parties themselves present themselves as witnesses and their testimony is evidence, sometimes the only evidence.

This is irrelevant to the problem though, that the second marriage *was *invalid, despite whether much evidence is available or not. The woman could know this to be the case and know she married in good conscience and free of sin. Tribunals only rule what they deem is true. They do not make something true or not.

§1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.

Outside the Catholic Church, the words are not set. The signs are not the same. It would be foolish to presume that all non-Catholics have a Catholic understanding of marriage. More to the point, it is false. Most do not have a Catholic understanding of marriage and vows are now written willy-nilly all over the map.

§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

Note there is nothing need in writing or witnessed mentioned. The majority of marriages that are tried in tribunals are annulled. I believe this speaks to the very deficit in the understanding of marriage that exists, as well as the ability of tribunals to balance evidence and rule without actual “proof”.

 

[Vico]

I do not think so. The use of the word* “proof”* misunderstands that what is really presented is evidence. Proof, as in absolute proof, is not needed. They parties themselves present themselves as witnesses and their testimony is evidence, sometimes the only evidence.

This is irrelevant to the problem though, that the second marriage *was *invalid, despite whether much evidence is available or not. The woman could know this to be the case and know she married in good conscience and free of sin. Tribunals only rule what they deem is true. They do not make something true or not.

I think we are in agreement, they find something true or not, not make it true or false.

Since it has to be grounded, the tribunal needs to verify that the second marriage had invalid consent at the time of the celebration. Have you seen the forms used for this? One such witness application has this:“A. Divorce: Did either spouse believe in divorce as a solution to marital problems? Did either spouse ever say, “If it doesn’t work out, we can always get a divorce”? Please explain, give examples, and indicate how and when you came to know these facts.
…
D. Fidelity: What attitudes did the spouses have about being faithful to each other? During the time of courtship and/or engagement, did either spouse date anyone else? Did this involve sexual familiarity? Please explain, give examples, and indicate how and when you came to know these facts.”

 

[pnewton]

I think we are in agreement, they find something true or not, not make it true or false.

Since it has to be grounded, the tribunal needs to verify that the second marriage had invalid consent at the time of the celebration. Have you seen the forms used for this? One such witness application has this:

Yes. Been there. Done that. I am not a woman, but I was in the same situation of knowing a marriage to be invalid. I know this can happen.

At one time, I heard of this mythical “internal forum” which I think was really nothing more than local priests violating canon law. As this marriage debate has continued, I am more persuaded that such a formalized counseling might serve a sizable number of case, leaving tribunals free to deal with the head-scratchers in a timely manner.

 

[Vico]

Yes. Been there. Done that. I am not a woman, but I was in the same situation of knowing a marriage to be invalid. I know this can happen.

At one time, I heard of this mythical “internal forum” which I think was really nothing more than local priests violating canon law. As this marriage debate has continued, I am more persuaded that such a formalized counseling might serve a sizable number of case, leaving tribunals free to deal with the head-scratchers in a timely manner.

I can see you have experience. in the matter.

There really is an internal forum.

The two jurisdictions are external and internal:

• External Forum - matters touching the public and social good of the corporate body
• voluntary - extra-judicial
• Necessary or contentious
• Internal Forum - Conscience - the welfare of individual Christians and with their relation to God
• sacramental or penitential
• extra penitential

If, in the thought problem, the tribunal did not find both of the prior marriages invalid, then the third would be invalid, so there is an indirect determination being done.

 

[dans0622]

I do not think so. The use of the word* “proof”* misunderstands that what is really presented is evidence. Proof, as in absolute proof, is not needed. They parties themselves present themselves as witnesses and their testimony is evidence, sometimes the only evidence.
…(c. 1101)…
Note there is nothing need in writing or witnessed mentioned. The majority of marriages that are tried in tribunals are annulled. I believe this speaks to the very deficit in the understanding of marriage that exists, as well as the ability of tribunals to balance evidence and rule without actual “proof”.

Hello,

I’m not sure how you arrived at these conclusions. A Judge who rules in favor of invalidity “without actual ‘proof’” is an embarrassment and a failure.

Dan