Marriage Between Two Catholics Before a Priest - Not Valid in the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConstantLearner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess you didn’t read my post. My sister asked me to do what I could since she is ill with lupus.

I also said the priest was a decades long family friend who knew everything about our family. I can’t ask him because he is now mid-90s and in assisted living and doesn’t remember much of anything. No one was judging the priest. My family loves him dearly. My sister is just curious. Why she wasn’t curious earlier is private, but she’s always been Catholic. I can say that much. Our family has been Catholic for centuries.
 
Last edited:
Oh wow. This took place some time ago! My concern is you won’t be able to get the answers from the people you need. Especially not after so much time.
 
ConstantLearner said:
Is it a valid Catholic marriage or not?
Click to expand...
Speaking generally, when a wedding takes place in accord with the requirements of canonical form, then it “enjoys the favor of the law” (i.e., “is presumed valid”).

Dan
 
somecanadian said:
Oh wow. This took place some time ago! My concern is you won’t be able to get the answers from the people you need. Especially not after so much time.
Click to expand...
Yes, asking the priest is a problem; he’s mid-90s and doesn’t remember much. Poor man. His physical health is good, though.
 
Oh, OK.
ConstantLearner said:
I guess you didn’t read my post. My sister asked me to do what I could since she is ill with lupus.

I also said the priest was a decades long family friend who knew everything about our family. I can’t ask him because he is now mid-90s and in assisted living and doesn’t remember much of anything. No one was judging the priest. My family loves him dearly. My sister is just curious. Why she wasn’t curious earlier is private, but she’s always been Catholic. I can say that much. Our family has been Catholic for centuries.
Click to expand...
Oh, OK. If she is validly married in the Church, the priest will have filed paperwork. If he didn’t file paperwork and from what you’re describing, it seems unlikely that he went through the process to confirm they were free to marry. You can make inquiries with your pastor about how to proceed on her behalf, so she can get her answers. Alternatively, go to the parish at which she was baptized. They will have been notified of any valid marriage and it will be on her baptismal record.
 
Last edited:
acanonlawyer said:
Speaking generally, when a wedding takes place in accord with the requirements of canonical form, then it “enjoys the favor of the law” (i.e., “is presumed valid”).
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your help. Please know it is greatly appreciated. I will inform my sister and she can take things from there.
 
acanonlawyer said:
Speaking generally, when a wedding takes place in accord with the requirements of canonical form, then it “enjoys the favor of the law” (i.e., “is presumed valid”).

Dan
Click to expand...
The problem is that the marriage was performed in the sacristy in 1973 by a friend of the couple and pointedly not performed in the church. They can’t assume it did meet the requirements of canonical form, since it is within the realm of possibility that their friend was bending the law and attempting to act only in his civil capacity.

If the bride’s baptismal certificate shows no marriage, it is hard to assume canonical form…that is, that the priest merely forgot to file the paperwork.

If her baptismal certificate shows the first marriage and no decree of nullity, after all, then it is her first marriage, not the second, that “enjoys the favor of the law.” (Likewise with the groom, of course, since he is also Catholic and has a baptismal record at some parish somewhere that would have been updated when he was confirmed, married, and so on…) This is correct, right?

Since they respect the priest, I have to think he at least thought in good faith that they were free to marry. The problem is that he may have judged incorrectly, all the same.
 
Last edited:
That’s a thing that could happen too.

Could have been an error of good faith. It doesn’t have to be that he acted deliberately to do wrong.
 
I have not seen this question asked or answered yet, so if it has I am sorry.

You say both your sister and her husband, both Catholic, were both married to other people before they married in 1973, correct?

Did both your sister and her husband have Catholic weddings for their first marriages?

The answer to this question can greatly effect the answer to whether or not the couple is validly married now.
 
PetraG said:
The problem is that the marriage was performed in the sacristy in 1973 by a friend of the couple and pointedly not performed in the church. They can’t assume it did meet the requirements of canonical form, since it is within the realm of possibility that their friend was bending the law and attempting to act only in his civil capacity.
Click to expand...
The marriage does not need to be performed in the church building to be valid. It needs to be celebrated in front of a priest with two witnesses. My friends were recently married in the parish office, after the Saturday evening Mass. All valid and everything. This was not particularly unusual, especially when you had a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic under the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
If the bride’s baptismal certificate shows no marriage, it is hard to assume canonical form…that is, that the priest merely forgot to file the paperwork.

If her baptismal certificate shows the first marriage and no decree of nullity, after all, then it is her first marriage, not the second, that “enjoys the favor of the law.” (Likewise with the groom, of course, since he is also Catholic and has a baptismal record at some parish somewhere that would have been updated when he was confirmed, married, and so on…) This is correct, right?
Click to expand...
Except the first marriage for each of them was civil only. Unless there is proof of a dispensation for those first weddings they are not presumed valid. No annulment was necessary.
Since they respect the priest, I have to think he at least thought in good faith that they were free to marry. The problem is that he may have judged incorrectly, all the same.
Click to expand...
I think we have to assume the priest did what he had to do, which often the couple know nothing about, to ensure he was performing a valid marriage.
 
Last edited:
Phemie said:
The marriage does not need to be performed in the church building to be valid. It needs to be celebrated in front of a priest with two witnesses.
Click to expand...
I realize that a bishop can give that dispensation. Having said that, the option of marrying in the church didn’t seem to have been offered:
ConstantLearner said:
The priest was a longtime (decades) family friend. He baptized all those in my family. My sister called him and asked if he would marry her and her fiance, and he said yes, but in the rectory due to their prior marriages.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that a bit odd? And this wasn’t a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic. It was two Catholics getting married.
Phemie said:
Except the first marriage for each of them was civil only. Unless there is proof of a dispensation for those first weddings they are not presumed valid. No annulment was necessary.
Click to expand...
OK, but if either party was previously married the priest normally has to submit paperwork to the diocese to confirm that neither first marriage was valid. It is often fairly fast, but it does have to be done.
Phemie said:
I think we have to assume the priest did what he had to do, which often the couple know nothing about, to ensure he was performing a valid marriage.
Click to expand...
The problem is that people, even priests, do sometimes try in good faith to bend the rules for a friend, but break the rules instead.

Were it me, I’d want to make sure my baptismal record was correct, if nothing else…that is, that my marriage in the Church was recorded. These are Church history; the records are preserved indefinitely. You want the records to be correct.
 
PetraG said:
OK, but if either party was previously married the priest normally has to submit paperwork to the diocese to confirm that neither first marriage was valid. It is often fairly fast, but it does have to be done.
Click to expand...
I know that it’s normally submitted to the Diocese in North America but it doesn’t have to be. The priest can deal with it during the prenuptial investigation. It really sounds as though this priest had known the couple for years. Was he their pastor all those years? Did they grow up in the parish? There’s a lot of information that the priest could glean from just the Baptism Register that would give him the answers he needs to know that they weren’t in a valid marriage previously.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
I realize that a bishop can give that dispensation. Having said that, the option of marrying in the church didn’t seem to have been offered:
Click to expand...
There is no dispensation needed for the priest to celebrate the marriage in the sacristy, certainly not back in the early 1970s under the old code and particularly if those Catholics had lived as man and wife with someone else and been divorced.
 
ConstantLearner said:
I know no paperwork was filed other than the paper he sent to court saying he performed their marriage. No paperwork regarding their former marriages, but they were civil only.
Click to expand...
OK, this is a very important piece of information that I missed in my last reply.

Since the couple are both Catholic, they were bound by Canon law to follow the rules of the Church regarding marriage. If both of them were married before, but not in the Church and with no dispensation to marry outside the Church, then the Church does not recognize that first marriage as a marriage at all due to “lack of form”. And that would make their marriage in 1973 valid and licit, so yes, they are married in the eyes of the Church.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
If both of them were married before, but not in the Church and with no dispensation to marry outside the Church, then the Church does not recognize that first marriage as a marriage at all due to “lack of form”. And that would make their marriage in 1973 valid and licit, so yes, they are married in the eyes of the Church
Click to expand...
If this is the case, I would agree the marriage from 1973 is valid. I strongly encourage a phone call to the parish office where your sister was baptized to see what the record shows.
 
Last edited:
If they were civilly married in the past, they should rest easy. The priest knew what he was doing. The first marriages were invalid; this one is valid.
 
Phemie said:
There is no dispensation needed for the priest to celebrate the marriage in the sacristy, certainly not back in the early 1970s under the old code and particularly if those Catholics had lived as man and wife with someone else and been divorced.
Click to expand...
Phemie said:
I know that it’s normally submitted to the Diocese in North America but it doesn’t have to be. The priest can deal with it during the prenuptial investigation. It really sounds as though this priest had known the couple for years. Was he their pastor all those years? Did they grow up in the parish? There’s a lot of information that the priest could glean from just the Baptism Register that would give him the answers he needs to know that they weren’t in a valid marriage previously.
Click to expand...
Right. He could have gotten their story, made a phone call to their baptismal parishes, and known that they were good to go. Plus, it was 1973, so who knows what his bishop’s policies were? He may have been not just technically within the rules but even playing totally according to Hoyle.
If the bride calls her baptismal parish and her current marriage is on her baptismal record, they’re all good.
That is all they need to know. If it isn’t, then there could be a reason to do some inquiries. Odds are, they’re all good.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top