In this case, the Church is clearly at fault, not the spouses, who did exactly what the Church asked of them. If the Church determines that the current marriage is invalid, the Church needs to handle this via radical sanation. Regardless, take 1ke’s advice and seek counsel from a canon lawyer.There is the presumption of the valid consent, but with impediment:
**CIC
Canon 1107 **Even if a marriage has been entered into invalidly by reason of an impediment or defect of form, the consent given is presumed to persist until its withdrawal has been established. Canon 1085.1 A person bound by the bond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
Canon 1085.2 Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty.
Canon 1085 applies to licety, not validity. Moreover, the establishment of freedom to marry in the case of a lack of form prior attempt at marriage can be done by the priest, it is not required that a tribunal does it.There is the presumption of the valid consent, but with impediment:
**CIC
Canon 1107 **Even if a marriage has been entered into invalidly by reason of an impediment or defect of form, the consent given is presumed to persist until its withdrawal has been established. Canon 1085.1 A person bound by the bond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
Canon 1085.2 Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty.
I’m really sorry that hearing this on CAL sent you down this crazy path. The need to regularize a marriage was referring to those who attempt a second marriage outside the Catholic Church..
I heard on Catholic Answers Live that second marriages in The Church needed to be “normalized”.
Well, the part of me that just burns when I read things like this that are done to innocent Catholics, it just makes me angry. That part of me hopes the OP will pursue getting his original, actual marriage date recognized, not this unnecessary convalidation that was foisted on him.It seems like all the horses have already left the barn. I don’t know what a canon lawyer could do–the so-called “convalidation” has already happened, all the bad advice has already been given and followed.
You’ve answered the question I had in my mind as to why pursuit of anything further at this point would possibly be beneficial to me.Well, the part of me that just burns when I read things like this that are done to innocent Catholics, it just makes me angry. That part of me hopes the OP will pursue getting his original, actual marriage date recognized, not this unnecessary convalidation that was foisted on him.
Acknowledgement of his **valid **marriage, correction of his sacramental records, and an **apology ** for putting him through all this unnecessarily AND an apology for his priest branding him a cohabitator and sinner would be nice.
Vindication, would be the goal I suppose. Not very saintly of me, I’m sure someone farther along the path of holiness would just let it go. But, in my mind the OP deserves justice in this matter, not condemnation from his priest.
I believe you mean specifically 1085.2. I believe that proof of civil marriage is required to eliminate prior bond impediment. Prior bond goes to validity. Do we know that happened since no paperwork was filed?Canon 1085 applies to licety, not validity. Moreover, the establishment of freedom to marry in the case of a lack of form prior attempt at marriage can be done by the priest, it is not required that a tribunal does it.
Actually, no. For a Catholic, the sacramental record is all that is needed. In Europe, for example, no sacarmental record, no marriage, done. My sister is married to a EU national, he was civilly married in his early 20s. They do not do anything more than a simple Q&A with the priest.I believe you mean specifically 1085.2. I believe that proof of civil marriage is required to eliminate prior bond impediment. Prior bond goes to validity. Do we know that happened since no paperwork was filed?
Which is all done with the sacramental record and a few questions with the priest pretty much everywhere but the US.I believe it must be shown that at least one of the spouses was bound to observe the canonical form at the time of the first wedding, that the marriage in question was not celebrated with a dispensation from canonical form by the proper bishop, and that the original non-Catholic ceremony was not subsequently convalidated by the proper Church authority.
Yet is seems that it is necessary to file the record of the baptism, marriage, and civil divorce: “He’d asked if I’d received Nullity and if a Lack of Canonical Form form was completed before our marriage in 2001. … I found that in fact the proper forms had not been completed.”Actually, no. For a Catholic, the sacramental record is all that is needed. In Europe, for example, no sacarmental record, no marriage, done. My sister is married to a EU national, he was civilly married in his early 20s. They do not do anything more than a simple Q&A with the priest.
Which is all done with the sacramental record and a few questions with the priest pretty much everywhere but the US.
Lack of Form is not a decree of nullity. It is an administrative procedure. There was nothing to apply to your original marriage, which may have been illicit (according to US procedures for lack of form cases) but was most certainly valid to start with. You marriage was, and has always been, valid.I am, however very confused by what seem to be differing opinions. If I understand correctly: if our original marriage in the Catholic Church was deemed to be valid as we thought it had been, would the declaration of nullity I received a month or so ago in relation to the non-Catholic marriage to my first wife prior to the Convalidation be applied retroactively to our records confirming the validation of our Catholic marriage thirteen years ago?
That is good. Obvioulsy, nothing your pastor did was out of malice, but simply out of concern for you and your wife. I am not sure how it got so bungled, but obviously everyone had good intentions.Even so, I must say the experience that transpired has felt like a wound. Not between my wife and I and thankfully I have no anger with The Church or our priest.
I really can’t tell you what you should do, only what I would likely do. And, I would work to see the record set straight and that those involved received some education on the matter. If your pastor did consult the diocese as he indicates, there is clearly a lack of proper education at that level as well, and that is truly shocking. It’s not uncommon for a local pastor to be unfamiliar with the ins and outs of marriage law, but those trained at the diocese should know better.In bringing up our record as you have, our priest did say that with the Convalidation complete, our records will reflect that even a century from now. Is it your opinion that rather than right our original marriage in The Church as the Convalidation was to accomplish you’re saying I should pursue some course of action that would instead affirm the validity of our original marriage and instead invalidate the Convalidation??
If it’s going to bother you, then at least get their opinion. If it’s not going to bother you and you don’t really care, then move forward and let it rest. Of course, we are all going on what you have relayed here, and it is possible there was something more to it that we don’t know about. But that’s what someone from St. Joseph can do-- take it to the detailed level and review everything.Very confusing. I may take your advice to contact the foundation you recommended.
Two women.I missed something.
Was the OP in fact married to the same person twice in the Church, or married outside, divorced, annulled due to lack of dispensation, married to ANOTHER young lady in the Church by father who is a deacon, then having to have THAT marriage con validated?
One of the things at the Synod I hope they do away with are marriages due to lack of dispensation not being recognized.
Oh my goodness. I can see where you would be confused and very upset. I am praying for you.Two women.
Marriage to first wife was outside The Church at a county courthouse and no dispensation was sought or granted. Marriage resulted in divorce.
Married to second wife inside The Church at a Catholic Church officiated by my father, a permanent deacon. Deacon consulted with the parish priest prior to the wedding to find out if the wedding was possible, was told that it was and marriage prep was completed and the wedding took place.
Just recently is was discovered that a Lack of Canonical Form had never been completed nor had a declaration of nullity every been granted for the marriage to first wife outside The Church at the time I married my second wife in The Church thirteen years ago.
No Communion for approximately one month while the Lack of Canonical Form, Baptismal Cert, divorce decree paperwork was assembled and submitted. A Declaration of Nullity was quickly approved by the diocese in relation to my marriage to my first wife outside The Church. While our priest at that time explained that we should abstain from Communion until the Convalidation; he NEVER said we should also abstain from having relations and honestly, the thought never crossed my mind given that my wife and I have been married for thirteen years in what we believed with every fiber was a valid marriage.
Then, the day of the Convalidation with confessions heard prior, during which he castigated my wife more strongly than he did myself but admonished both of us for not confessing the sin of cohabitation on our own accord.
I hope that makes more sense.
That is not true. The marriage would be ILLICIT if nullity of the first marriage had not been determined but not INVALID. However, in the OP’s case, lack of form does not have presumption of validity. There is no tribunal case for nullity in lack of form situations.The marriage would not be valid when there is a previous (even civil) marriage bond and it must be verifie that the person is free to marry. That requires filing the proper documents (in 2001) which was not done according to the original poster.
This is what I refer to which is about validity:That is not true. The marriage would be ILLICIT if nullity of the first marriage had not been determined but not INVALID. However, in the OP’s case, lack of form does not have presumption of validity. There is no tribunal case for nullity in lack of form situations.
In this case, the priest gave the deacon direction that they couple was free to marry (which is a fact) and to proceed. If the priest did not follow procedures, that goes to licety only, not validity.
But he was not bound by the bonds of a prior marriage. His civil marriage was not presumed valid by the Church so no necessity for a decree of nullity. There is no putative marriage unless it is celebrated in the Church or with a dispensation.This is what I refer to which is about validity:Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
Now I’m really confused. What do you mean it was valid at one point? I thought a valid marriage can never be undone.Lack of Form is not a decree of nullity. It is an administrative procedure. There was nothing to apply to your original marriage, which may have been illicit (according to US procedures for lack of form cases) but was most certainly valid to start with. You marriage was, and has always been, valid.