At least two circumstances come to mind where she wouldn’t need a declaration of nullity.
Wouldn’t an annulment still be required, though, in both of these instances? Not the full tribunal process, but a lack of form declaration?
The marriage of a Catholic married outside the Church is NOT presumed to be valid. In that case it can be as simple as the priest documenting the facts of the marriage. Whether or not the case is submitted to the Tribunal depends on the Bishop.
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Another possibility would be if her former spouse is deceased.
Yes this is the case. Ok that explains that then. But it still makes no sense, legally they were considered married. Dad left the catholic church !
They were legally married but not validly married as the Catholic Church defines valid. A Catholic who has not formally defected from the Church (which would be a majority of those who were baptized Catholic but say they are no longer Catholic) is still required to get married according to the rules established by Canon Law. Not following those rules renders the marriage invalid in the eyes of the Church, though in most cases not in the eyes of the State.
There is a difference between a legal marriage and a Sacramental Marriage. Marriage in the Catholic Church is one of the Seven Sacraments along with Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Confession, Holy Orders, and Annointing of the Sick. What the Church determines when it declares a marriage valid or invalid is whether or not the marriage was Sacramental; not whether it was legal or not.
I can understand why you’d say that it “makes no sense” that such people aren’t validly married. I think such a policy is a pretty major scandal.
What the Church determines is whether or not the marriage was VALID – not whether it was sacramental.
Dear TLara. Why did you answer a non confrontational question with a confrontational answer? Sublime Prince just asked a question to be answered. Perhaps charity begins and ends at home?To the OP, So let me get this strait, you hear about a friends marriage and with out all the details you bash the Catholic church on a Catholic forum about what you think is Catholic Doctrine. Well I guess that shouldn’t surprise me since it’s what Protestant 's have always done.
To the OP, So let me get this strait, you hear about a friends marriage and with out all the details you bash the Catholic church on a Catholic forum about what you think is Catholic Doctrine. Well I guess that shouldn’t surprise me since it’s what Protestant 's have always done.
It isn’t so that marriages outside the Catholic Church are invalid. If two baptized non Catholic people are married in church, their marriage is valid and recognized “for them” as valid. If these same people were to divorce and then want to marry a Catholic in a Catholic Church, it would be very iffy. As I undestand it, they and the Catholic intended wouldn’t be able to marry.
A marriage between Protestants or unbelievers is considered valid, as they are not subject to the laws of the Catholic Church. Therefore, if they became Catholic they would require annulment if they wished to re-marry.
I am not sure about the annulment being required in all instances. If the two non-Catholics were married by a JP, or Civil authority, I don’t believe the marriage is recognized as such by the Catholic Church. To be in a recognized valid marriage, I believe both parties must be babtized and married in a church. Very confusing
No, I’m sorry, baptism is not required for a valid marriage.
I think you have some things incorrect. A Catholic who marries outside the Catholic Church, without their Bishops permission, is invalidly married. It would be incorrect to say all marriages of Catholics outside the Church are invalid. Most marriages of non-Catholics are considered valid. In all cases all must be free to marry (not maried to someone else in a prior marriage) and capable of marriage. In Catholic thought all marriages are considered valid until proven otherwise.
This is incorrect.