NetNuncio:
All of what other posters have said here is true. It is wise to visit with your parish priest concerning the exact circumstances of your case, but here are some basic facts . . . Adam
Adam (NetNuncio) is way too kind.
As another poster remarks, responses on an internet forum cannot authoritatively answer questions of law or pastoral practice in a given circumstance. They should be understood as general advice which alerts the inquirer to what he or she might expect to discover in speaking with a priest, deacon, or ecclesiastical lay minister.
I tend to pipe in only when a response seems to lack accuracy, or when it does not refer to a basis in law, or when a personal interpretation of the law by some poster improperly endangers the exercise of rights in the Church. And, I have time. Generally, the forum is self-correcting in that there are many knowledgable and orthodox posters to do follow ups.
To marry your fiance validly would first require that the Church establish his freedom to marry. In general, there are two possible paths.
If he is unbaptized and now wishes Catholic baptism, a privilege of the faith (either as a Pauline privilege in the case of two unbaptized parties or a Petrine privilege in the case in which only one is unbaptized)
might be possible, but a Church process must establish that.
Otherwise there must be an investigation by a tribunal to see if his first marriage was invalid for a reason recognized in either divine or Church law.
Both of these topics can be discussed in depth with the priest, deacon, or lay minister, at your parish who deals with marriage situations.
In response to an earlier post though, I would comment that attempting marriage without a privilege or declaration of invalidity would not result in a less meaningful marriage; it would result in an invalid marriage and be objectively gravely sinful.
There is a broader question, of course. Dating a divorced person whose freedom to marry has not been established, is fraught with spiritual dangers, and I cannot think of a situation in which I would ever encourage it. It is even more spiritually dangerous to proceed toward exclusive dating, company-keeping, and marriage. But I am at least pleased at the hope of conversion and the desire of the original poster to do the right things at this point.
The practice I would encourage is to delay baptism or reception into the Church for a divorced person who wishes to marry again until that person’s freedom to marry has been established. This is done not only for pastoral reasons but to avoid future complications that may arise in a procedure for privilege or invalidity. Even when a prospective catechumen or candidate for reception does not have a proximate intention to remarry, but conceivably might some day, this is the wiser path. Prudent RCIA directors discuss this issue during the first interviews with inquirers or present it very early in the inquiry process.
Another matter that bears discussion has to do with seeing if reconciliation of the divorced person is possible. While this may not be the situation presented by the case at hand, there is an obligation by the Church’s ministers to seek such reconciliation, or at least, to raise the question.
Ultimately the divorced who envision remarriage must decide if they will take the teaching of Christ at face value, that marriage is indissoluble and that divorce goes not give a right to remarry. They will either commit to a union that is gravely, objectively sinful, or they will submit to the authority of the Church which acts in the name of Christ as Judge to determine that the first marriage was not a binding and indissoluble union through an “annulment” process, or made possible by a recourse to the right of Baptism and the privilege of the faith.
