Marriage or Not?

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

kevjminn

Guest
My wife was married right out of high school for a year and a half. Neither her nor her husband were baptized. Her husband had an affair on her and told her he wanted a divorce. They eventually got a civil divorce. (Specifics excluded)

I (a baptized Roman Catholic) married my wife civilly about a month after her divorce was finalized ( I had nothing to do with her divorce by the way) . We were married civilly. We joined the Orthodox Church (where my wife and my children were baptized) about 5 years later.

A few years later my wife and I decided we might join the local Catholic Church because it would be a lot closer to our home and we could be more active in the parish.

After much research on the dividing issues between the two faiths, I didn’t see enough of a difference to follow one versus the other. Boy was I wrong.

My wife and I petitioned the Catholic Church for marriage. I knew that her former marriage would have to be looked at but I didn’t believe it would be a problem considering neither of them were even baptized at the time.

The tribunal told us that if my wife had been baptized (even if it was after her civil divorce) and her ex-husband has been baptized or will be baptized anytime before our marriage was validated , it would cease to be a “pauline privilege” case because her former marriage would be considered “sacramental” and would need to be fully annulled.

My wife was baptized years after her civil divorce. Why would her ex-huband’s baptism be an issue?

How can their marriage be considered valid if they were baptized outside of their relationship with each other
 
There are two kinds of marriage: natural (one or neither baptized) and sacramental (both baptized). Natural marriages should be preserved if at all possible (1 Cor. 7:12-14, 16). Also natural marriage is: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its very nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children” (Canon 1055, § 1). The essence and properties of marriage bind all people as part of God’s natural law. As an example, if an unbaptized person, living in polygamy, becomes a Christian, he must keep the wife he had first married and release the second, in case the first wife is converted with him. Any person that entered a genuine marriage is spiritually bound to that spouse and the spiritual bond is not ended by civil divorce. So the question is always, was a spiritual bond formed?

Once one of the spouses is baptized, the natural marriage becomes sacramental and cannot be dissolved, except for the case of non consummation after the moment of that baptism.

So this is a case of natural marriage becoming sacramental because the civil quality is not what determines a marriage.

There are two forms of dissolution of a natural marriage, in the favor of faith:

A Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a natural marriage that was contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian.

A Petrine Privilege (rare) is the dissolution in “favor of the faith” of a marriage between two non-Catholics (or even one Catholic) and a non-baptized person, granted by the Roman Pontiff.
 
Vico said:
Once one of the spouses is baptized, the natural marriage becomes sacramental and cannot be dissolved, except for the case of non consummation after the moment of that baptism.
Click to expand...
No, the natural marriage continues until both spouses are baptized. A non-baptized cannot receive a sacrament and the sacrament is not divisable.
 
kevjminn said:
My wife was baptized years after her civil divorce. Why would her ex-huband’s baptism be an issue?
Click to expand...
Because a marriage between two baptized people is a sacrament. If the parties are not baptized, the marriage does not have the character of sacramentality and therefore indissoluability. Natural marriages are dissoluable.

It is baptism itself that brings about this sacramental character of marriage. So, if the parties are unbaptized at the time of their marriage but then receive baptism, the marriage automatically receives that sacramental character of indissoluability.

Therefore, baptismal status is VERY important.
kevjminn said:
How can their marriage be considered valid if they were baptized outside of their relationship with each other
Click to expand...
Because civil divorce does not dissolve a marriage. Even though they no longer live together, they are still married. Natural marriages can be valid. If valid, upon baptism the marriage also takes on the sacramental character of indissoluability.

She can petition for a declaration of nullity. If the mariage is found to be invalid, then you would be able to convalidate your marriage.

To petition for dissolution of the bond, the baptismal status of both parties absolutely does matter even if the baptism occured after the parties separated physically. Remember, divorce does NOT end a marriage. This chart might help:

diocs.org/Portals/1/Documents/Tribunal/Decision_matrix.pdf
 
Vico said:
Once one of the spouses is baptized, the natural marriage becomes sacramental and cannot be dissolved, except for the case of non consummation after the moment of that baptism.
Click to expand...
Excellent catch. 😉

It appears from the OP that both parties were baptized well after the divorce. The marriage is still considered sacramental. However, it also appears that the spouses did not have sex after both were baptized. This is an extremely important point if this is true. The marriage would be considered sacramental, but not a consummated sacramental marriage. An unconsummated sacramental marriage is not intrinsically indissoluble.

Regardless, this sounds like a complicated case, and the manner in which it is handled depends on the very specific details. The bishop’s office really needs to handle this, since it potential deals with issues that are not common.
 
ValPal said:
Excellent catch. 😉

It appears from the OP that both parties were baptized well after the divorce. The marriage is still considered sacramental. However, it also appears that the spouses did not have sex after both were baptized. This is an extremely important point if this is true. The marriage would be considered sacramental, but not a consummated sacramental marriage. An unconsummated sacramental marriage is not intrinsically indissoluble.

Regardless, this sounds like a complicated case, and the manner in which it is handled depends on the very specific details. The bishop’s office really needs to handle this, since it potential deals with issues that are not common.
Click to expand...
ValPal, that is good advice, I believe that ratum sed non-consummatum cases may have to be approved by Rome (Tribunal of the Roman Rota).

Just to be sure the errata is corrected what was meant is:

Once both of the spouses are baptized, the natural marriage becomes sacramental and cannot be dissolved, except for the case of non consummation after the moment of that baptism.
 
Vico said:
ValPal, that is good advice, I believe that ratum sed non-consummatum cases may have to be approved by Rome (Tribunal of the Roman Rota).
Click to expand...
All cases involving dissolution of a marriage, either natural or unconsummated sacramental marriages, are handled in Rome.
 
ValPal said:
All cases involving dissolution of a marriage, either natural or unconsummated sacramental marriages, are handled in Rome.
Click to expand...
The local Bishop can declare a Pauline privilege.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top