Married in another church, divorced

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeremy75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jeremy75

Guest
My mom was married to my dad in the Mormon Church. She divorced him and asked if she could get married to my future stepdad in the Cath. Church. This was approx. 30 yrs. later. The Catholic Church said she could because it didn’t recognize her 1st marriage. This didn’t seem right then and still doesn’t seem right. I’d imagine that all marriages would be sacred in the eyes of God. I see him as being openminded and non judgemental.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
 
My mom was married to my dad in the Mormon Church. She divorced him and asked if she could get married to my future stepdad in the Cath. Church. This was approx. 30 yrs. later. The Catholic Church said she could because it didn’t recognize her 1st marriage. This didn’t seem right then and still doesn’t seem right. I’d imagine that all marriages would be sacred in the eyes of God. I see him as being openminded and non judgemental.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
Was either your mom or dad Catholic, or were they both Mormon? It would make a difference.

Without more information it’s impossible to know what was really discussed with the Church. As a rule, 2 non-Catholics who marry are presumed to be in a valid marriage regardless of where the ceremony takes place – unless of course there was something (like a previous marriage) to prevent a valid marriage from taking place.
 
Thanks. My mom was raised Catholic, baptized, etc. My dad wasn’t Catholic.
 
Thanks. My mom was raised Catholic, baptized, etc. My dad wasn’t Catholic.
Canon law automatically makes an attempted Marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian (Mormon) invalid unless a Dispensaton from that specific Canon from the Bishop is requested and obtained.
 
Thanks. My mom was raised Catholic, baptized, etc. My dad wasn’t Catholic.
And therein lies the problem. As a Catholic your mom was obligated to follow the Church’s rules concerning marriage and those rules include marrying a Catholic, in the Catholic Church. Now she could get permission to marry a baptized non-Catholic or a dispensation to marry a non-baptized man. She could also, for a good reason, get a dispensation to marry outside the Church. Without those the Church considers the marriage invalid.
 
God is the ultimate judge, the final judge of all. God is NOT openminded. God is wisdom and truth, truth is not relative.
 
My mom was married to my dad in the Mormon Church. She divorced him and asked if she could get married to my future stepdad in the Cath. Church. This was approx. 30 yrs. later. The Catholic Church said she could because it didn’t recognize her 1st marriage. This didn’t seem right then and still doesn’t seem right. I’d imagine that all marriages would be sacred in the eyes of God. I see him as being openminded and non judgemental.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
not enough info
the only way to have all the necessary info is to have all the results of the investigation conducted by the canon law tribunal of the diocese, which has evidently found that the first marriage was not valid. Since those proceedings are confidential no one except the parties involved, their pastor, and the tribunal should have all that info, and that includes their children. You may take it that if indeed she did go through the annulment process the Church has found that at the time of the first marriage conditions necessary for a valid contract were not present. One of the key pieces of evidence lacking: was either party to the first marriage a baptized Catholic? if so, it was invalid due to lack of form because the Catholic party disobeyed Church law by marrying in the Mormon church. Yes God sees all valid marriages as sacred, but not every attempted marriage is valid. And yes He does judge–read the bible for instances of his judgement.
 
My mom was married to my dad in the Mormon Church. She divorced him and asked if she could get married to my future stepdad in the Cath. Church. This was approx. 30 yrs. later. The Catholic Church said she could because it didn’t recognize her 1st marriage. This didn’t seem right then and still doesn’t seem right. I’d imagine that all marriages would be sacred in the eyes of God. I see him as being openminded and non judgemental.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
This isn’t a judgement by the Church about the value of your birth family, about whether your dad was a fine human being or not, or any of that. The judgement is about whether your mom, baptised as a Roman Catholic, was allowed by the canon law of the Catholic Church to marry a non-baptised person* (or even a baptised person outside the Church) without dispensation from her bishop. She wasn’t. By canon law, she had the right to marry another Catholic within the Church when she married your dad, but was bound to obtain permission and observe other canon laws pertaining such marriages before she could marry a person who was outside the Church. Therefore, even though the marriage was undoubtedly attempted in good faith by both parties–the Church would not hold you children to have been illegitimate or anything like that–the marriage was not valid. Once your mother was free to enter a monogamous marriage in the eyes of the state, by virtue of civil divorce or annulment, the Church will find her free to marry within the Church. (A Catholic who enters into a civil marriage not recognised as valid by the Church is still not free to marry until the civil marriage contract is dissolved.) It would not matter if her invalid marriage had been attempted a day before or fifty years before. An invalid marriage is not made valid by the passage of time. Even if your parents were still together, their marriage would not be considered valid. They would have to get permission to marry with “disparity of cult” in order to be able to get a convalidation of their marriage.

(*Mormon baptism is not recognised as valid by the Roman Catholic Church.(vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html.
I suppose it goes without saying, but the Mormons don’t recognise Catholic baptisms as being valid, either. It is not judgmental for both to recognize that each does something totally different, even though both use the word “baptism” for it.)
 
It wouldn’t be an invalid marriage in either case:

Case 1: Both parents or either one parent was Catholic and were married in the Mormon Church without the blessing of the Church===Invalid Marriage

Case 2: Both parents were mormon and married in the mormon church…since mormons are not christian by nature of an invalid Trinitarian formula for baptism, then the marriage is invalid, because you must properly be baptized before you can enter into the sacrament of marriage

Case 3: One was properly baptized and the other wasn’t, still invalid marriage
Was either your mom or dad Catholic, or were they both Mormon? It would make a difference.

Without more information it’s impossible to know what was really discussed with the Church. As a rule, 2 non-Catholics who marry are presumed to be in a valid marriage regardless of where the ceremony takes place – unless of course there was something (like a previous marriage) to prevent a valid marriage from taking place.
 
It wouldn’t be an invalid marriage in either case:

Case 1: Both parents or either one parent was Catholic and were married in the Mormon Church without the blessing of the Church===Invalid Marriage

Case 2: Both parents were mormon and married in the mormon church…since mormons are not christian by nature of an invalid Trinitarian formula for baptism, then the marriage is invalid, because you must properly be baptized before you can enter into the sacrament of marriage

Case 3: One was properly baptized and the other wasn’t, still invalid marriage
Case 2 & 3 FALSE
While non-sacramental, they are presumed valid. You’re saying that only Christians can have valid marriages and that is NOT what the Church teaches. Non-Christians contract valid, natural marriages all the time.
 
Presumed validity and actual validity are two different things…I was answering the OP as to why she was allowed to remarry…which the Tribunal ruled it was not a valid marriage to begin with.

Case 2–If his mom were seeking to married in the Catholic Church and neither parent was baptized, the tribunal would declare that an invalid marriage…she would then have to be Baptized and Confirmed and allowed to marry in the Church

Case 3–She was properly baptized in The Catholic Church and still got married without The Church’s blessing in the Mormon Church to a non-Christian…while presumed valid, still the Tribunal will rule it invalid once they investigate it.

Therefore both cases are accurate…we weren’t talking about presumption…we were talking about the fact that the Tribunal declared her marriage invalid…so it isn’t a matter about presumed validity, because it was in fact, not valid…therefore I tried to offer reasons why, with the limited knowledge I had of the situation…later I read that it was Case #3. Therefore you are mistaken. That is the reason why her first marriage was not considered valid…even though before the Tribunal made that ruling, it was presumed Valid. IS that simple enough for you?
Case 2 & 3 FALSE
While non-sacramental, they are presumed valid. You’re saying that only Christians can have valid marriages and that is NOT what the Church teaches. Non-Christians contract valid, natural marriages all the time.
 
From New Advent:
Though ecclesiastical law does not affect the acts of infidels as such, yet the Church has to pass judgment on the validity of these acts and their juridical consequences when infidels come within the fold by baptism. No act of an infidel can have any value from the point of view of the spiritual society to which he does not belong; he is incapable by Divine law of receiving the sacraments, notably Holy orders (evidently we are not speaking here of a purely material reception); nor can he receive or exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The acts of infidels are to be considered in the light of natural law, to which they, like all men, are subject, and in accordance with the Divine law, in so far as it determines the secondary natural law. This applies principally to the case of matrimony. The marriage of infidels is valid as a contract under natural law, not as a sacrament, though at times this word has been applied to it (cf. Encycl. Arcanum); it is subject only to the impediments of natural law and, at times, to those of the civil law also, but it is not affected by the impediments of canon law. However the Church does not recognize polygamy as lawful among infidels; as to divorce strictly so called, it admits it only under the form of the Casus Apostoli, also known as the privilege of the Faith or the Pauline privilege; this consists in a convert being permitted to abandon his partner, who remains an infidel, if the latter refuse to continue the common life without endangering the faith of the convert (cf. DIVORCE, I, B, 1); under such circumstances the convert may marry a Catholic. As to acts which are prohibited or void in virtue of canon law alone, they are valid when performed by infidels; thus, the impediment of the remoter degrees of consanguinity and affinity, etc., does not affect the marriages of infidels. But the juridical consequences of the acts, performed by them when infidels, begin to exist at the moment of and in virtue of their baptism; consequently, a converted widower may not marry a relative of his late wife without dispensation; and again, a man who has had two wives before his conversion is a bigamist and therefore irregular.

In this place mention may be made of the ecclesiastical law forbidding the faithful to marry infidels, a prohibition which is now a diriment impediment, rendering a marriage null and void unless a dispensation has been obtained (see DISPARITY OF WORSHIP). It is easy to see that there is a real danger to the faith and religious life of the Catholic party in the intimacy of married life and in the difficulties in the way of a Christian education of the children; and, if that party be the wife, in the excessive authority of the husband and the inferior condition of the wife in infidel countries; consequently, this dispensation is granted only with difficulty and when the precautions dictated by prudence have been taken. The laws regulating the dealings between Catholics and infidels in civil life were inspired also by religious motives, the danger of perversion, and the high idea entertained in the ages of faith of the superiority of Christians to infidels. These regulations, of course, did not refer to all acts of civil life; moreover, they were not directed against all infidels indifferently, but only against Jews; at the present day they have fallen almost completely into desuetude. In the early Middle Ages, Jews were forbidden to have Christian slaves; the laws of the decretals forbade Christians to enter the service of Jews, or Christian women to act as their nurses or midwives; moreover, Christians when ill were not to have recourse to Jewish physicians. These measures may be useful in certain countries today and we find them renewed, at least as recommendations, by recent councils (Council of Gran, in 1858; Prague, in 1860; and Utrecht, in 1865). As for the Jews, they were ordinarily restricted to certain definite quarters of the towns into which they were admitted, and had to wear a dress by which they might be recognized. Modern legislation has given the Jews the same rights as other citizens and the intercourse between them and Catholics in civil life is no longer governed by ecclesiastical law. (See JEWS AND JUDAISM; MOHAMMED AND MOHAMMEDANISM.)
 
If Marriage is a Sacrament, and their marriage is non-sacramental, how is it valid? Maybe valid legally…but not Ecclesiastically…Use deductive reasoning:

Marriage=Sacrament
Non-Sacramental=No Valid Sacrament
Non Sacramental Marriage=No Valid Marriage
Case 2 & 3 FALSE
While non-sacramental, they are presumed valid. You’re saying that only Christians can have valid marriages and that is NOT what the Church teaches. Non-Christians contract valid, natural marriages all the time.
 
If Marriage is a Sacrament, and their marriage is non-sacramental, how is it valid? Maybe valid legally…but not Ecclesiastically…Use deductive reasoning:

Marriage=Sacrament
Non-Sacramental=No Valid Sacrament
Non Sacramental Marriage=No Valid Marriage
Not so. The marriage of a Catholic to a non-baptized in the Catholic Church with all dispensations and permissions is valid but not sacramental. Priests and deacons do not witness marriages that are automatically invalid.
 
I am aware of that…however, if you read my posts, I am referring to a Catholic that willfully married outside the Church without any of the permissions and dispensations…of course one can seek those and have a blessed marriage in the eyes of The Church…what did I say in my posts that led you to think I was talking about blessed, valid marriage? Everything I have said is in reference to either 2 non-baptized people being married, 1 validly Baptized and 1 Non-Baptized, or At least one or both parties being Catholic and marrying outside the Church without Church approval…all cases of which result in invalid, non-sacramental marriage…therefore I don’t understand your argument, because I never said anything contrary to The Church’s teachings…what I have said is in perfect line with Church teaching.
Not so. The marriage of a Catholic to a non-baptized in the Catholic Church with all dispensations and permissions is valid but not sacramental. Priests and deacons do not witness marriages that are automatically invalid.
 
If Marriage is a Sacrament, and their marriage is non-sacramental, how is it valid? Maybe valid legally…but not Ecclesiastically…Use deductive reasoning:

Marriage=Sacrament
Non-Sacramental=No Valid Sacrament
Non Sacramental Marriage=No Valid Marriage
Both persons must be validly Baptized to enter into a valid Sacramental Marriage. If either or both are not Baptized they can enter into a valid but non-Sacramental Marriage - a Natural Marriage.

That natural Marriage can be dissolved if one seeks Baptism and the other does not wish to remain in the Marriage because of this fact.
 
Exactly…thank you Br. Rich…I was having a hard time being articulate regarding what I was trying to say and the point I was trying to make.
Both persons must be validly Baptized to enter into a valid Sacramental Marriage. If either or both are not Baptized they can enter into a valid but non-Sacramental Marriage - a Natural Marriage.

That natural Marriage can be dissolved if one seeks Baptism and the other does not wish to remain in the Marriage because of this fact.
 
Canon law automatically makes an attempted Marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian (Mormon) invalid unless a Dispensaton from that specific Canon from the Bishop is requested and obtained.
This is curiousity on my part. My ex-husband was never baptized. If there was a dispensation from the bishop, would I have been the one to procure it, or would our priest have done it? If there is one, I don’t know about it. We were married in church with the pastor and my cousin the monsignor presiding. Nobody ever said anything about needing a dispensation, and I figured they would know what had to be done. I’m not interested in getting married or anything like that, once was more than enough, but I wondered.
 
This is curiousity on my part. My ex-husband was never baptized. If there was a dispensation from the bishop, would I have been the one to procure it, or would our priest have done it? If there is one, I don’t know about it. We were married in church with the pastor and my cousin the monsignor presiding. Nobody ever said anything about needing a dispensation, and I figured they would know what had to be done. I’m not interested in getting married or anything like that, once was more than enough, but I wondered.
Most likely the priest involved in the Marriage preparation process simply did it for you. The way to find out would be to obtain a copy of your Baptism Certificate and look on the back where all the other Sacraments are listed (usually). If the Marriage is listed then it was obtained.
 
This is curiousity on my part. My ex-husband was never baptized. If there was a dispensation from the bishop, would I have been the one to procure it, or would our priest have done it? If there is one, I don’t know about it. We were married in church with the pastor and my cousin the monsignor presiding. Nobody ever said anything about needing a dispensation, and I figured they would know what had to be done. I’m not interested in getting married or anything like that, once was more than enough, but I wondered.
That paper work is done by the priest who meets with you for your pre-nuptial investigation since it’s a communication between him and the bishop. Not all priests mention the steps that need to be taken before you actually exchange your vows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top