Marriage validity question - with a twist

[DefaultUsername]

Hello + My apologies for what will probably come across as excessively neurotic and melodramatic, but I’ve got a question regarding marriage that’s been nagging at the back of my mind for a few months now.

I have been seeing my girlfriend for a little longer than three years - after all this time and weathering the standard ups and downs to be expected of any young couple, I really could not be happier with our situation. We’re both beginning to settle into careers, and we’ve recently started talking about marriage, although we are not “officially” engaged (it’s come up when talking to a few close friends, but for the sake of not getting too far ahead of ourselves, we haven’t mentioned it to our families yet).

Queue anxiety addled neurosis: I dated my previous girlfriend for four years leading into my freshman year of college. We were young and naive, were fairly convinced that we’d be getting married at some point. During this time, I was a tepid, nominal Christian with predictably foolish ideas about how everything worked (non-churchgoing + skeptical of organized religion, but I at least tried to let let faith guide some of my decisions).

Somewhere down the line during the last year that we dated, we began referring to ourselves (half-jokingly) as married although there was no civil ceremony or church service. I still introduced her to friends as my girlfriend rather than my wife, there was no public declaration (although I think we may have listed ourselves as “married” on Facebook for what that’s worth), and we never lived together - in fact, we still discussed having a wedding eventually She was never outwardly religious, and we never really spoke much about it - there was no mention of God or Christian marriage (and I think I remember her saying she’d prefer it not be in a church). She wanted to move in together, I didn’t want to bring it up with my parents because I didn’t think they’d approve, and quite frankly, would’ve been embarrassed to try to declare ourselves “married” to either of them.

Despite the fact that most of what we said was the two of us thinking it was romantic or cute, the small fragment of religiosity working in the background of my mind lent it some credence, thinking that I did not need validation from anyone or any institution for us to be together. I vaguely remember praying about the situation hoping I could justify the sexual interaction between the two of us with the fact that we privately called ourselves married. There was always some anxiousness about it and never did feel that my conscience was 100% clear, but at the same time, I did hope that what we were doing was justifiable.

Anyway - flash forward about a year to the inevitable breakup. Not on bad terms, but it did come out of no where. I was perfectly happy - she decided it was just too soon to know if we should be so serious. I spent the next few months feeling very depressed and tried pretty desperately to resolve the situation, although the “marriage” thing crossed my mind maybe once in the aftermath. Despite the depression, I was interested in dating a few months afterwards and finally bounced back about a year later.

Until my current girlfriend and I began talking about marriage, it had probably been close to five years since I last thought about the “we’re married” phase of the previous relationship. I know that it’s probably quite ridiculous to even worry about, but would there be any requirement for an annulment? There is no public record that we were ever actually married, no documentation to go over, or contractual stipulations to consider. I’m just curious, do a few words spoken between the two of us ears ago constitute an impediment now? Really hoping that I didn’t stick myself with a life of celibacy over ignorance and lofty ideals.

Typing this out has made me the entire thing feel even sillier than I already thought it was, and really, I have a feeling that the right answer is that I should just be relieved that I’m no longer trying to cheat my way into justifying pre-marital sex… but I can’t shake the nagging feeling that I might’ve bit off more than I could chew during the first relationship

For the record - her family’s Catholic, I’m unbaptized non-denominational but also open to and giving serious consideration towards making a legitimate commitment to a church (but not yet fully convinced - a conversation for another time)

Sorry for cranking out a novel in order to ask a single question - hoped to provide as much context as possible!

 

[twf]

If she was baptized Catholic, it would not have been possible for her to validly contract a marriage outside the Church without a dispensation. Even had there been a civil ceremony, no marriage would have occurred.
If neither of you had been baptized, I suppose one could argue that a natural marriage could be contracted without a formal ceremony (afterall, we see in the Genesis accounts a patriarch simply taking his bride into his tent and the deed was done)… But even if one did make that argument it would have to be a firm resolution, not a on / off nebulous thing. Regardless, if she was baptized Catholic the discussion is moot.

 

[DefaultUsername]

Sorry - current GF’s family is Catholic - ex was non-religious as far as I know.

Obviously there would be things that we’d need to take care of before taking steps towards marriage, but I think that’s a separate conversation

 

[PolarGuy]

You were never married. Period.

 

[frizzgrig]

If your “marriage” was not recognized by civil law, you wouldn’t even be able to claim that a natural marriage had occurred. As long as you never got a marriage license, and never satisfied any legal requirements to be recognized as married, you were never married (civilly or otherwise).

 

[DefaultUsername]

Thanks guys - very reassuring to hear…probably should have just come out and asked about my specific situation instead of googling around and trying to hammer somebody else’s circumstance into congruity with my own - would’ve saved me quite a bit of anxiety and hand wringing.

Would imagine being too afraid to even bring up the subject of moving in together with my parents is more than adequate proof that I was trying to justify pre-marital sex.

Thanks so much for bearing with me - I know it’s a pretty goofy thing to get caught up on and the smart way to look at this is gratitude in getting out of the previous relationship and into a more healthy and mature one

 

[underacloud]

although I think we may have listed ourselves as “married” on Facebook for what that’s worth

Oh dear. Once it’s on facebook it’s pretty much official. I think you’ll need to apply to facebook for an annulment.

I vaguely remember praying about the situation hoping I could justify the sexual interaction between the two of us with the fact that we privately called ourselves married. There was always some anxiousness about it and never did feel that my conscience was 100% clear, but at the same time, I did hope that what we were doing was justifiable.

I was waiting for this part of the story.

There really isn’t any “twist” to this question. You simply were never married. You fooled yourself into thinking that your sexual relationship was justifiable. Which happens to many many people. I assume you’ve repented of that? If so, move on and be happy that you didn’t marry that girl and are free to marry now (baring any other issues).

Of course, if you are going to pursue marriage with this girl, you will at some point need to meet with a priest to discuss. I think you’ve reached that point in time now to talk with a priest - about the past, the present, and the future.

 

[chevalier]

There is a small theoretical chance that you would need a short and simple administrative procedure for ‘lack of form’ if you lived, at that time, in a civil jurisdiction in which what your and your ex’s actions and appearances were sufficient to establish a common-law marriage, which should normally have much higher requirements than what you did.

 

[1ke]

There is a small theoretical chance that you would need a short and simple administrative procedure for ‘lack of form’ if you lived, at that time, in a civil jurisdiction in which what your and your ex’s actions and appearances were sufficient to establish a common-law marriage, which should normally have much higher requirements than what you did.

A) neither are Catholic so “lack of form” does not apply

B) they were in high school at the time

C) they never lived in common life together

the above = no common law marriage

 

[dans0622]

… I know it’s a pretty goofy thing to get caught up on and the smart way to look at this is gratitude in getting out of the previous relationship and into a more healthy and mature one

Hello,

If we were living 500 years ago, your question would not be goofy in any way. Even today, it’s not really a goofy question. The marital consent of the man and woman “make” marriage. That’s the nature of the thing. So, 500 years ago, you could really be in a valid marriage even if only you and the woman were aware of the consent being exchanged.

For the last 450 years or so, though, the Church and civil society have moved to only accept marriage as arising from “properly manifested” marital consent. That means you can’t just say to the woman (and vice versa) “I marry you” out on the beach with the dolphins as your witnesses and then actually be married. You need to express that consent in a legitimate form (whether ecclesial or civil) and so you must have at least one other qualified, adult person who witnesses the consent being exchanged. Then, there is some paperwork which records what just happened.

Since you had no proper manifestation of marital consent, nobody would consider you to be married.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

A) neither are Catholic so “lack of form” does not apply

…

While I don’t think it would apply in this case, there can be times when a Tribunal would examine a civil marriage between non-Catholics under a “lack of form” or heading…well, maybe a real “lack of (civil) form” would be quite rare but a “defect of (civil) form” could be more likely: the civil official was not actually authorized to witness the wedding, for example.

Dan

 

[1ke]

While I don’t think it would apply in this case, there can be times when a Tribunal would examine a civil marriage between non-Catholics under a “lack of form” or heading…well, maybe a real “lack of (civil) form” would be quite rare but a “defect of (civil) form” could be more likely: the civil official was not actually authorized to witness the wedding, for example.

Dan

So defect, sure. I was referring to lack of form meaning they had to marry in the Catholic form or a specific form. (Exception for Orthodox noted in my permanent footnote)