Marriage Question

[chevalier]

This is interesting. Can you explain? I guess I’m thinking if a person goes before a tribunal to receive an annulment and it is granted, and he/she/they did not purposely deceive the tribunal, then how could the marriage still be considered valid? Then if the person decides to remarry are they committing a sin without even knowing it?

No one ever commits a sin without knowing. The person is not committing a sin. Moreover, that marriage will be putatitve (invalid but believed in good faith at least by one party to be valid), meaning childern would be legitimate, too. However, yes, that marriage would be invalid.

And yes, a tribunal can be mistaken. This doesn’t even concern only some situations in which the error never comes out, but say, somene’s marriage is found null. The second instance tribunal affirms. At this stage there are two concordant decisions and the person is considered free to marry, which he does. But the respondent appeals to a third instance (the Roman Rota, but it sometimes designates a different tribunal)… and he succeeds. This means the petitioner and respondent have *always *been married, without a time gap.

 

[chevalier]

I think there is also a case when catholic can enter a Natural Marriage with dispensation and that marriage can become sacramental at later dates by the non catholic spouse converting.

Yes, but that’s a valid marriage. The marriage is not sacramental, but it is valid, so it doesn’t need to be convalidated.

 

[chevalier]

WHat if one spouse had hidden his/her past from the other and is trying to correct their defects to grow in Grace and dedication to his/her spouse?

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Z.HTM

Marriage may require convalidation if one of the parties was maliciously deceived (and with the intent of obtaining the deceived person’s consent) about some quality of the other party that could gravely (very seriously) disturb the partnership of conjugal life (conjugal life being marital life, so not all aspects of life in which the spouses interact).

 

[1ke]

If a scramental Catholic marriage was performed and it may have been invalid, can it become valid without benefit of an outside party (i.e. the Church)?

It depends upon the reason for the invalidity. See this link:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM

Are all sacramental marriages valid?

A sacramental marriage would be presumed valid until evidence is presented to the contrary. Marriage enjoys the favor of the law.

WHat if one spouse had hidden his/her past from the other and is trying to correct their defects to grow in Grace and dedication to his/her spouse?

That would depend upon the exact nature of what was hidden. See here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Z.HTM

Basically, this is a question that cannot be answered in the hypothetical.

 

[1ke]

I am not looking for an annulment, but rather a solid Liturgical Catholic based reason to keep a marriage together.

Huh?

 

[1ke]

I see. And I don’t see.

I am looking at two Catholics who may be on the verge of divorce, but their beliefs in the Church would keep them togehter. If the marriage was, or is, invalid, they might dissolve.

Their marriage is valid. Marriage enjoys favor of the law. They would have to have grounds and evidence to prove otherwise.

So, move away from a conversation on divorce and suggest counseling and other avenues for keeping them together. Retrouvaille for example.

 

[Phemie]

Ha! What an eye to detail. It’s true there will begin a valid marriage there, but it won’t be able to be convalidated back to the date of the wedding because a baptised non-Catholic can’t have two valid marriages at the same time. At least it would make no sense for such convalidation to be possible because it would mean that a baptised person was married to two people at the same time.

I think the term convalidation is only applicable to Catholic marriages and it implies doing something to make an invalid marriage valid.

As I understand it, in the case of two non-Catholics where one had previously been married, the second marriage would become valid at the moment the previous spouse died. Nothing else is required except the continuing consent of the spouses.

 

[Phemie]

No one ever commits a sin without knowing. The person is not committing a sin. Moreover, that marriage will be putatitve (invalid but believed in good faith at least by one party to be valid), meaning childern would be legitimate, too. However, yes, that marriage would be invalid.

And yes, a tribunal can be mistaken. This doesn’t even concern only some situations in which the error never comes out, but say, somene’s marriage is found null. The second instance tribunal affirms. At this stage there are two concordant decisions and the person is considered free to marry, which he does. But the respondent appeals to a third instance (the Roman Rota, but it sometimes designates a different tribunal)… and he succeeds. This means the petitioner and respondent have *always *been married, without a time gap.

Joe Kennedy, anyone?

 

[tee_eff_em]

A sacramental marriage would be presumed valid until evidence is presented to the contrary.

A sacramental marriage is valid. A sacramental marriage is a valid marriage between baptized parties. There is no such thing as a “sacramental invalid marriage”.

Marriage enjoys the favor of the law.

That goes for all marriages, whether they are (putatively) sacramental (ie between the baptized) or not.

tee

 

[1ke]

A sacramental marriage is valid. A sacramental marriage is a valid marriage between baptized parties.

A mariage entered into by two baptized persons is presumed to be a valid marriage, and therefore also a sacrament. It is presumed to be valid by favor of the law. This marriage might be found to be invalid at a later time based on evidence.

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

There is no such thing as a “sacramental invalid marriage”.

I am quite aware of that.

That goes for all marriages

I never said otherwise. The question was about marriage between the baptized. Therefore I addressed that question.

 

[chevalier]

I think the term convalidation is only applicable to Catholic marriages and it implies doing something to make an invalid marriage valid.

“Convalidation” is a legal term describing the act or moment of making something valid which wasn’t valid before. It doesn’t necessarily refer to a specific procedure. This is different from Simple Convalidation as a specific manner of convalidation.

As I understand it, in the case of two non-Catholics where one had previously been married, the second marriage would become valid at the moment the previous spouse died. Nothing else is required except the continuing consent of the spouses.

Yes, that is what happens. But the effect is a sort of convalidation–it’s not really a marriage contracted anew, even though obviously (as far as I go) there can be no retroactivity in the sense of the effects of the second marriage dating back to when the previous spouse lived.

 

[chevalier]

Joe Kennedy, anyone?

In Joe Kennedy’s case, the Rota actually acted as the second instance because his wife appealed directly there instead of the local appellate tribunal. Thus, he never became considered free to marry in accordance with canon law because the declaration of nullity only takes effect after two concordant sentences.