Marriage logic: If could annul then invalid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kowpeki
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kowpeki

Guest
If a married couple could get an annulment, for example for not being mentally competent to make the decision, does that mean the marriage is invalid, meaning the couple is living in sin until they either get a valid marriage or get an annulment?
 
No. Marriages that have been validly celebrated are presumed to be valid.
 
“validly celebrated”… I can’t believe the answer is that cut and dried. Suppose one of the persons is married but lies about it to the priest and the “marriage is validly celebrated”. Maybe that wouldn’t be considered “validly celebrated”, so it begs the question of what is the definition of “validly celebrated”. Would the marriage of two people coerced into getting married also not be considered “validly celebrated”?
 
You’d have to pursue that with the Tribunal. A case of bigamy would be one where the second wedding was not only invalid, but illegal. The person who lied would be sinning, not the person to whom the lie was told
 
My main question is “if could annul, then is it valid or not”? One answer is “if validly celebrated, then assumed valid”. I guess even that isn’t conclusive. “assumed” doesn’t mean “is”. Particularly, if the marriage is validly celebrated, but clearly invalid due to obvious reasons, it is not valid.

So let me pose another question. How can a couple objectively know their marriage is valid?
 
Their validly (no lack or defect of form) marriage enjoys the presumption of validity unless a Tribunal declares otherwise.
 
Reminds me of precana. The wife teaching us reached a part of the material, paused, then joked to her husband of 50+ years “huh, I guess ours marriage could have been annulled. Ha”

Isn’t there a requirement that one know they are committing a sinful act? If the default presumption is validity then the default presumption would be not sinful.

In this hypothetical would the invalidating circumstance be known by both spouses when the marriage was contracted?

Disclaimer: I’m not Catholic
 
“Their validly (no lack or defect of form) marriage enjoys the presumption of validity unless a Tribunal declares otherwise.”
This still does not feel like an objectively conclusive answer. We all have doubts. Would a person that isn’t really fully certain they are willing to accept all the promises made during the ceremony or who might even have doubts about the existence of God, but who through pressure from their parents and/or who thinks that going through the marriage ceremony would put them on the safe side in case they later come around to full belief, be a valid marriage? Or does that somehow break the defect of form clause?
 
“In this hypothetical would the invalidating circumstance be known by both spouses when the marriage was contracted?” I’m sorry, your question is over my head, what are you asking here? Please clarify.
 
Do both husband and wife know that there is something that could make their marriage invalid? Or is this hidden from one of them.

For example, did the wife feel coerced by family and unable to freely consent? And she concealed this leading up to the wedding.
 
That is a interesting nuance, but it doesn’t seem relevant considering the answer to your question: “Isn’t there a requirement that one know they are committing a sinful act?” I’m pretty sure the answer is yes, one has to know they are sinning for it to be a sin. The interesting implication is that one could be in an invalid marriage, yet not be living in sin. It does seem a little strange, but makes logical sense to me.

I’m failing to see the logic of “presumed valid” marriage for a person who entered into the marriage in the church without fully being certain of their beliefs, but feeling coerced by their parents and finding it the easiest thing just to go through with it. I suppose one could ask the same question about Confirmation, but I’ve never heard of a Confirmation annulment. I don’t even want to open that can of worms. My question is whether a confirmed Catholic who later loses his/her faith yet goes through a marriage ceremony in the church has a valid marriage? Would their marriage be pretty much the same in the eyes of the church as if they were married by a justice of the peace? I really want to know the answer.
 
Last edited:
The answer has been given. The marriage is presumed to be valid unless one of the parties approaches the Tribunal to determine otherwise. The faith or lack of it on the part of the couple isn’t necessarily an invalidating factor – the Church assumes the intent to marry.
 
Thank you, I guess I see how it makes logical sense. It almost seems as if it would be better for a person with some doubt in their faith to “hedge their bets” and get married in the church in case they later come around to true belief. I have been told this is not the right choice, so I will leave it at that. it is better to be married outside the church than to be married in the church without full belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top