Marriage, bigamy and annulment

[LKWalker]

First, I am protestant raised, but a catechumen now.

A man marries a woman, and 12 years later, after having the marriage acknowledged by the catholic church, discovers that she is still married to her first husband, at which point she leaves him rather than pursuing a civil divorce with her real husband and remaining with him.

Since that time this man has married me civilly, but is told he needs to get an annulment through the catholic church. I know there are issues with this now, but when I married him, I wasn’t concerned with the catholic church.

He tries and is told they can’t annul until there is both civil paperwork affirming that his non-marriage is null, and SHE divorces her first husband.

Obviously he is not in a position to coerce her into pursuing a divorce of her real husband.

In the state of Texas there is not any action that needs to be taken by the man to “re” marry, he is free according to the state so long as the separation happened before the death of the first husband (still living) and before the finalizing of a divorce.

The Tribunal will not hear the case? what should we do? He isn’t taking communion, in case you were concerned.

Thank you.

 

[pianistclare]

I’m lost. The woman is STILL married to someone else?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

This is confusing. Please help us get this straight.

A Catholic man was married in the Church to a woman who was previously married? Her first husband was still living. What were the circumstances of their Catholic marriage? How was the first marriage dispensed with?

After some years, he learns that she was actually still married to the first husband? How was this discovered? She leaves the second husband at this time and they divorce?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Please, on Monday contact the Tribunal Office at your Diocese and ask for the name of an advocate. From what you say here, the man described would need a simple bit of paperwork to be filed for a “ligamen/prior bond” case. That states his first wife was not free to marry because she had a prior bond. It will take her original marriage license, and some paperwork.

 

[1ke]

This is a complex case. I’m not sure how the man had his marriage convalidated by the Church if the woman’s prior bond was not investigated and resolved (unless she lied about it). Sounds like there are some pieces missing in this story.

I would suggest that the gentleman reach out to the judicial vicar of the diocese to discuss the case directly. He should make an appointment and lay out all the facts.

If the judicial vicar of the diocese will not assist, then the man needs to reach out to St Joseph Foundation, a foundation of canon lawyers who help Catholic with their canon law rights.

https://stjosephcanonlaw.com

 

[Trishie]

We’ll be praying for your husband and you.
It’s a difficult situation and I ask the Lord to give you both all the blessings you need.

Two posters above me have give great advice.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Ok so the Church convalidated the marriage? Civilly she was already married to another?

He, your husband, didn’t divorce her civilly, but he is now married civilly to you?

Or ?

Has your husband married you civilly without getting a civil divorce form a civil marriage to a person married to two men

 

[LKWalker]

Thank you all for your replies.

When he married her civilly he had no knowledge that she was still married, or ever had been. The first marriage was never dispensed with.

He discovered this accidentally while doing genealogy research.

He tried to get her to divorce her first husband, but instead she left him.

He tried to get a divorce or annulment or something through the state, but the state doesn’t have a (I can’t even find the words) Before I married him, I researched and made sure he was free according to the state to marry me. The law is simple, and stated above. There was no marriage, and no divorce or annulment was required.

The circumstances of the first marriage were: when they were married, he was atheist. She was raised catholic, but not practicing, he became catholic, they had their marriage convalidated by the catholic church.

To TheLittleLady thank you! 1Ke thank you! When he was told yesterday that the Tribunal wouldn’t hear the case, we both… were flustered. We plan on getting a cannon lawyer, we’ll see if we were just going about this the wrong way and see if they will accept the “ligamen/prior bond” I’ll let you know

Trishie, thank you! prayers are always welcome.

 

[1ke]

She was raised catholic, but not practicing, he became catholic, they had their marriage convalidated by the catholic church.

Ok, this makes a little more sense as to how the marriage could have been convalidated. Especially if she didn’t tell anyone she had been married civilly. As a Catholic, that first marriage of hers would not have been valid. So she had no prior bond impediment. The marriage between she and your husband would be presumed valid canonically.

The fact she was legally married to someone else at the time of the convalidation is throwing me for a loop. I’m not a canon lawyer, but I don’t see how this couldn’t be an impediment. There is a canon law that says a marriage cannot be celebrated if it isn’t legal civilly.

I think that fraud is also a ground he could use if she lied about being married. This would be evidenced in the premarital/pre-convalidation paperwork.

Definitely get with the St Joseph Foundation to speak to a canon lawyer. This is a complex case.

It is possible the tribunal person didn’t understand what you were telling them.

 

[Gorgias]

It is possible the tribunal person didn’t understand what you were telling them.

This would be my guess, too. It sounded pretty convoluted in @LKWalker’s first post. Maybe @LKWalker might try breaking it down chronologically when she describes the situation to the judicial vicar or other canon lawyer. Something like:

1976: Annie (a Catholic) marries Ed (of unknown religion?) civilly.
1984: Annie leaves Ed (but does not pursue a civil divorce).
1987: Annie marries Tom (an atheist) civilly.
1989: Tom converts to the Catholic faith.
1990: Annie and Tom’s marriage is convalidated in the Catholic Church.
1999: Tom discovers that Annie is still civilly married to Ed. Rather than divorce Ed, Annie leaves Tom.
2005: Tom marries LKWalker (a baptized Christian) civilly.

Like @1ke says, this scenario (if I’ve recreated it accurately) gives us more questions than answers. How could Annie marry Tom civilly if she were already civilly married to Ed? How could LKWalker marry Tom civilly if he’s already married to Annie (or was there a civil divorce)? How could Annie and Tom’s marriage be convalidated in the Church (or was there a Church annulment for Annie’s first marriage)?

 

[pnewton]

I too am a little confused and I think there might be a misunderstanding. I know a tribunal will not examine a marriage unless that marriage has been ended civilly, but the status of her previous marriage should be irrelevant. Is he civilly divorced from her?

 

[LKWalker]

He cannot get a divorce civilly because civilly there was never any marriage.

 

[LKWalker]

Annie did not tell anyone she was still married to ed, and the state does not check. so the state granted a marriage license to annie and tom.

 

[pnewton]

So, in Texas, one does not get an divorce in this situation because in the eyes of the state there was no marriage. I would think then, if there was no marriage, and the Tribunal says they do not do an annulment in this case, then there should be no impediment to marriage, just as if one had a fake wedding, or was simply living together.

I have a solution. Talk to your priest. This may be one of those prime case where Amoris Laetitia might apply, if this is in between the cracks in canon law.

 

[1ke]

How could Annie and Tom’s marriage be convalidated in the Church (or was there a Church annulment for Annie’s first marriage)?

Sounds to me like Annie lied to Tom and her first (and ongoing) marriage wasn’t revealed in any premarital investigation.

But yes, it’s convoluted and definitely is one I would engage the services of a canon lawyer for.

 

[1ke]

This may be one of those prime case where Amoris Laetitia might apply, if this is in between the cracks in canon law.

I do think there is tribunal involvement in some regard. While there was no civil marriage as far as the state is concerned, there definitely was a canonical one, because Tom and Annie had a civil marriage license (because at the time neither Tom, the state of Texas, nor the Church were aware of the existence of Ed) and they convalidated their marriage in the Church. Tom cannot convalidate his marriage to the OP because the sacramental records show he is married to Annie.

Something has to be done to investigate and issue some sort of determination. Sacramental records cannot be updated otherwise.

 

[Gorgias]

He cannot get a divorce civilly because civilly there was never any marriage.

Hang on a second; who was never married civilly?

(I’ll use the names from above.)

Are you saying that Annie and Tom never married civilly?

Or that Annie and Ed never married civilly?

 

[1ke]

Are you saying that Annie and Tom never married civilly?

Or that Annie and Ed never married civilly?

Because Annie and Ed were legally married when Annie and Tom entered into a marriage, the state of Texas considers the attempted marriage between Annie and Tom VOID. The state will not issue a divorce decree. As far as the Texas code is concerned, the marriage between Annie and Tom doesn’t exist because the attempt at marriage was illegal.

If Annie had divorced Ed her marriage to Tom would have become a valid common law marriage at the time of the divorce if she and Tom were still cohabiting.

And I really don’t think that’s where the problem lies. I think the problem lies with the fact Annie and Tom took their marriage license (completely illegal unbeknownst to Tom) to the Catholic Church and convalidated their (nonexistent) civil marriage by exchanging consent in the Catholic form. That record now exists on Tom’s baptismal register and Annie’s too.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Are you saying that Annie and Tom never married civilly?

Or that Annie and Ed never married civilly?

Because Annie and Ed were legally married when Annie and Tom entered into a marriage, the state of Texas considers the attempted marriage between Annie and Tom VOID. The state will not issue a divorce decree.

Fair enough. The Church, then, convalidated a marriage which could not be recognized by the state. Therefore, the tribunal should be able to state that the convalidation is null.

As far as the Texas code is concerned, the marriage between Annie and Tom doesn’t exist because the attempt at marriage was illegal.

And so, if they attempt to get a copy of Annie and Tom’s marriage license, won’t the state-supplied document show the fact that the marriage attempt was illegal? Or will it simply show that the application for marriage was granted?

If the state is saying that it can’t divorce Annie and Tom, wouldn’t they have some documentation demonstrating that there is no valid civil marriage between them, such that the canonical case could use it as evidence?

 

[1ke]

And so, if they attempt to get a copy of Annie and Tom’s marriage license, won’t the state-supplied document show the fact that the marriage attempt was illegal? Or will it simply show that the application for marriage was granted?

I don’t know what would happen if he went to the county courthouse to get a certified copy now. But at the time of the convalidation they certainly would have issued one. And I have a pile of them in my file cabinet from when we got married and I was changing my name on everything.