Married but not in the Church. Some insights needed

[Fox]

Say two individuals, one a Catholic, the other from another denomination, get legally married by the justice of the peace and have relations with one another.

Say this couple is desiring to be married in the Catholic Church when the Catholic has the anulment from a previous marriage comes through. now all this time they are having relations and eventually becomes habit forming, so to speak, can’t think of other words. Is the Catholic in mortal sin for having relations with this woman since the annulment hasn’t been completed yet?

Since the relations have formed a core part of the marriage is the sin lessened because of it, making it a venial offense? Will it be in the same realm of habitual masturbatio? Keep in my the individuals do trully love one another and are monogamous.

Now the second part of this, if the Church doesn’t recognise civil marriages as it being in the eyes of God, why does the Church require a legal civil marriage to be annuled (and not the legal dissolution of said civil marriage) before they can be married in the Church?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)uts.

 

[Cristiano]

Say two individuals, one a Catholic, the other from another denomination, get legally married by the justice of the peace and have relations with one another.

Say this couple is desiring to be married in the Catholic Church when the Catholic has the anulment from a previous marriage comes through. now all this time they are having relations and eventually becomes habit forming, so to speak, can’t think of other words. Is the Catholic in mortal sin for having relations with this woman since the annulment hasn’t been completed yet?..

Yes the person is sinning by having a relationship with the woman. The sin is due to the fact that the two are not considered married by the Church. The sexual act can become habit forming only if it based on lust not on being one flesh.

Since the relations have formed a core part of the marriage is the sin lessened because of it, making it a venial offense? Will it be in the same realm of habitual masturbatio?..

That is a false pretest to continue do do something wrong. You cannot say I have a habit and so even if it is a grave matter it is not a mortal sin. A habit might diminish the culpability, but there is never a guarantee that it makes the sin venial. Only a priest in confession my assess so.

…Now the second part of this, if the Church doesn’t recognise civil marriages as it being in the eyes of God, why does the Church require a legal civil marriage to be annuled (and not the legal dissolution of said civil marriage) before they can be married in the Church?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)uts.

The Church recognizes both natural and sacramental marriages. You could think of them as two different levels, that you cannot pick and choose. The annulment does not dissolve the marriage but it is an investigation to see if the marriage was valid in the first place. The act of divorce dissolves the legal aspect of a state contract, but it does not prove the initial lack of validity. A divorced person can still be in a sacramental marriage.

 

[1ke]

Is the Catholic in mortal sin for having relations with this woman since the annulment hasn’t been completed yet?

Yes.

Since the relations have formed a core part of the marriage is the sin lessened because of it, making it a venial offense? Will it be in the same realm of habitual masturbatio? Keep in my the individuals do trully love one another and are monogamous.

No.

Now the second part of this, if the Church doesn’t recognise civil marriages as it being in the eyes of God,

**Catholics **are bound by the Catholic form of marriage and all of the Church’s marriage laws.

Non-Catholics who contract a civil marriage (barring an impediment such as a prior marriage) do so validly. The Church absolutely recognizes those marriages as valid.

why does the Church require a legal civil marriage to be annuled (and not the legal dissolution of said civil marriage) before they can be married in the Church?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)uts.

Your question doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Fox]

Ok, let me rephrase the second part.

The non catholic had a civil marriage to an atheist person. This woman didn’t know the spouse was atheist and once she found out, divorced this person civily since it was not compatible to her religious beliefs.

Now that this civil marriage is dissolved would this non catholic woman need an anulment to marry the catholic man. If so, what if the atheistic ex spouse doesn’t want anything to do with religion or the mandates of the Church and won’t do anything?

 

[1ke]

Ok, let me rephrase the second part.

The non catholic had a civil marriage to an atheist person. This woman didn’t know the spouse was atheist and once she found out, divorced this person civily since it was not compatible to her religious beliefs.

Now that this civil marriage is dissolved would this non catholic woman need an anulment to marry the catholic man.

Yes. The woman does need to be declared free to marry and this would require that she go through the Tribunal process for nullity in the Catholic Church.

If so, what if the atheistic ex spouse doesn’t want anything to do with religion or the mandates of the Church and won’t do anything?

The atheist ex-spouse will be given the opportunity to participate, but if he refuses he is not obligated and it is not required for him to do so. The woman to move forward with a nullity case without the participation of her ex-spouse.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

If the atheist was never baptized, a petition for a decree of nullity might go fairly rapidly.

 

[1ke]

If the atheist was never baptized, a petition for a decree of nullity might go fairly rapidly.

On what do you base this statement?

 

[puzzleannie]

Say two individuals, one a Catholic, the other from another denomination, get legally married by the justice of the peace and have relations with one another.

Say this couple is desiring to be married in the Catholic Church when the Catholic has the anulment from a previous marriage comes through. now all this time they are having relations and eventually becomes habit forming, so to speak, can’t think of other words. Is the Catholic in mortal sin for having relations with this woman since the annulment hasn’t been completed yet

 

[Joe_Kelley]

On what do you base this statement?

I have worked with annulments when I ran the RCIA so have some familiarity with the processes. However, I am not an expert on it; so don’t want to give definitive advice. So I am trying to tread carefully here.

A valid sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved. However, a marriage is sacramental only if both parties have been baptized. If one or both parties have not been baptized, they have a valid natural marriage. This can be dissolved under some circumstances to permit a person to practice the Catholic Faith - Pauline or Petrine Privilege.

 

[1ke]

If one or both parties have not been baptized, they have a valid natural marriage. This can be dissolved under some circumstances to permit a person to practice the Catholic Faith - Pauline or Petrine Privilege.

Yes, certainly the Pauline or Petrine privilege could be a possibility here.

But, the dissolution of the bond in favor of the faith is not a decree of nullity, and since it has to go to Rome may not go “fairly rapidly.”

I was wondering about the “fairly rapidly” part, because nothing about Pauline/Petrine privilege is rapid.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Yes, certainly the Pauline or Petrine privilege could be a possibility here.

But, the dissolution of the bond in favor of the faith is not a decree of nullity, and since it has to go to Rome may not go “fairly rapidly.”

I was wondering about the “fairly rapidly” part, because nothing about Pauline/Petrine privilege is rapid.

Petrine goes to Rome. We were promised three months; that usually ended up being six. However, all the paperwork must be perfect,* i’s *dotted and t’s crossed. Pauline is handled locally and took less than a month once one had all the paper work.

 

[FrDavid96]

Say two individuals, one a Catholic, the other from another denomination, get legally married by the justice of the peace and have relations with one another.

Say this couple is desiring to be married in the Catholic Church when the Catholic has the anulment from a previous marriage comes through. now all this time they are having relations and eventually becomes habit forming, so to speak, can’t think of other words. Is the Catholic in mortal sin for having relations with this woman since the annulment hasn’t been completed yet?

Since the relations have formed a core part of the marriage is the sin lessened because of it, making it a venial offense? Will it be in the same realm of habitual masturbatio? Keep in my the individuals do trully love one another and are monogamous.

Now the second part of this, if the Church doesn’t recognise civil marriages as it being in the eyes of God, why does the Church require a legal civil marriage to be annuled (and not the legal dissolution of said civil marriage) before they can be married in the Church?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)uts.

As for the first marriage, the Catholic party can petition for a declaration of nullity based on “lack of form”; that is, if the Catholic person was married by a J.P. without the written permission of the local bishop, then the declaration of nullity is a relatively easy process. All you realy have to “prove” is that 1 party was Catholic at the time and there was no permission from the bishop. In most cases, it doesn’t have to go any further than this.

The Church does not require a declaration of nullity before convalidating that same marriage (“married in the Church”). The declaration is needed for the first marriage, but is not even sought for the second one.

 

[Ruthie]

Now the second part of this, if the Church doesn’t recognise civil marriages as it being in the eyes of God, why does the Church require a legal civil marriage to be annuled (and not the legal dissolution of said civil marriage) before they can be married in the Church?

The Church begins with the point of view that God has brought two people together in marriage, whether or not it takes place in the Church. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:9, RSV)

To put it simply, the job of the marriage tribunal is to determine whether God brought these two together, or not. To marry in the absence of God by denying His precepts for marriage means that God did not bring them together. Therefore, the marriage never existed.

The marriage tribunal does not “rubber stamp” divorce, because every marriage, and every divorce, is unique. Each one must be fully investigated.

YSIC,

Ruthie

 

[flameburns623]

I’m not an expert but if I understand the OP’s situation: the first marriage would be similar to the situation my wife and I find ourselves in. My wife’s first husband was baptised Catholic. I was married previously but I am a baptised Catholic and my first marriage was not regularized by the Catholic Church.

According to my local tribunal, both my marriages can be dissolved (NOT ‘annulled’) for non-canonical form, at the local diocesan level, and in fairly short order. The person I spoke to at the Tribunal suggested that they could have such dissolutions done in well under a month, if everything were in order.

Both my wife and I have fallback cases: my first wife was a baptised Protestant Christian who was married to a baptised Protestant Christian–so according to the Catholic Church she would probably not have been free to marry me anyhow. My present wife has never been baptised, so we have the alternative of pursuing a dissolution of her first marriage by Petrine privilege.

Either ‘fallback’ would take longer for the tribunal to resolve, but each is a viable alternative in my case. From what I can see–a ‘dissolution for non-canonical form’ would also be the primary avenue the OP could pursue as well.

Hope this is helpful. Please note that others, more knowledgeable than I about this process, may have more to say or a clearer understanding than have I.