Married twice to the same woman in the Catholic Church

[Phemie]

Now I’m really confused. What do you mean it was valid at one point? I thought a valid marriage can never be undone.

**1ke **was referring to his real marriage in the Church, not his civil marriage prior to marrying his current wife.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Now I’m really confused. What do you mean it was valid at one point? I thought a valid marriage can never be undone.

A Catholic marrying must follow Catholic form. A Catholic attempting marriage outside of the Church without the appropriate dispensation(s) is simply invalid. The fact that the Catholic individual is married civilly is not relevant. There is no valid marriage to undo, since one does not exist.

If both parties are non-Catholic, or involves a Catholic with the appropriate dispensation(s), then the marriage is presumed valid. However, that does not apply here.

Lastly, validsacramental marriages cannot be “undone.” Non-sacramental marriages (i.e., marriages involving an unbaptized person) may be dissolved under specific circumstances.

 

[rinnie]

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.

That’s the way I see it.

But where I am confused is if he was not bound to the prior marriage, and then married in the Church and is now bound, why he has a problem.

 

[Phemie]

That’s the way I see it.

But where I am confused is if he was not bound to the prior marriage, and then married in the Church and is now bound, why he has a problem.

The OP is wondering why he had to have a convalidation of a marriage that was already valid according to everything he knew. Many of us are wondering the same thing. His problem is that he wants his first marriage in the Church to be the one that’s recognized, not the convalidation that it would seem he never needed in the first place.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m afraid I don’t understand the question. Are you asking if I’d confessed the sins committed while cohabitating when married civilly to my first wife? Most certainly and many years ago.

You gave the answer earlier in this post of yours: *Had we known thirteen years ago that our marriage wouldn’t have been valid and chose to live in an invalid marriage all of this time anyway? Absolutely not. *

 

[babochka]

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 hope that the Church’s famed record-keeping is still intact outside of the U.S. Within the U.S. it is a mess. When we obtained my husband’s baptismal certificate prior to our marriage, it did not contain a record of his Confirmation, which took place at the same parish as his baptism. We recently obtained another copy, and still did not contain a record of his Confirmation, nor of our Marriage. Going by the sacramental record alone, as recorded on his baptismal certificate, he is an unconfirmed Catholic who is free to marry.

Which is all done with the sacramental record and a few questions with the priest pretty much everywhere but the US.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that it is done this way in pretty much every place with which you have experience and/or personal knowledge?

I questioned this rather broad statement, so I did a quick search for references to “lack of form documentation in the UK”. I chose the UK only because the information was likely to be in English. I very quickly found this, from the Archdiocese of Swouthwark. rcsouthwark.co.uk/PRENUPTIALFORM2-4CF.pdf

This document very clearly states: "Please note: 1. In Lack of Form cases, no deate should be set until the Declaration of Freedom is received from the Marriage Tribunal.

Here is another diocese, this time in Australia, in which lack of form cases go to the tribunal.
diometuchen.org/offices-and-ministries/the-tribunal/lack-of-form-annulment/

 

[Phemie]

I hope that the Church’s famed record-keeping is still intact outside of the U.S. Within the U.S. it is a mess. When we obtained my husband’s baptismal certificate prior to our marriage, it did not contain a record of his Confirmation, which took place at the same parish as his baptism. We recently obtained another copy, and still did not contain a record of his Confirmation, nor of our Marriage. Going by the sacramental record alone, as recorded on his baptismal certificate, he is an unconfirmed Catholic who is free to marry.

I’ll bet I know why that happened: the parish keeps separate registers for each sacrament and whoever entered the Confirmation and Marriage in them didn’t also enter them into the baptismal record.

I discovered that while working as a parish secretary. Nobody told me I was supposed to look in ALL the registers before issuing a Certificate of Baptism – why should I have to when all recordable sacraments are also supposed to be entered in the baptismal record? Turns out only the ones that had been celebrated outside the parish and about which the parish had been notified had been recorded in the baptismal register. The ones celebrated in the parish were only entered in the specific registers for Confirmation and Marriage.

Once I found that out (here by the way), I made sure to always check all the registers and if I found sacraments in one register that hadn’t been added to the baptismal register I did it so that the next person who did my job didn’t have the same problem. Also made sure that all new Confirmations and Marriages were properly noted in the baptismal register.

 

[Vico]

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.

One part is about divine law (1085 §1) and the other about legal process (1085 §2). The first makes a marriage invalid the second illicit. So, the priest had a good reason to ask if forms were filed. To not investigate is illicit, but if there really was a prior bond, investigated or not, it would invalidate.

If there was no formal and acknowledged break with the Catholic Church (and the first civil marriage was between 1983 and 2010) then the civil marriage would be a lack of form. Assuming that is the case, then the way for the Church to know it is lack of form, is to posses the baptismal certificate and the civil marriage certificate. The OP said “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.” Since the OP was recently convalidated, there should have been a verification of freedom to marry, and so if that really occured then the Church has now verified that there was no prior bond from the civil marriage. Now that would mean there was no impediment in 2001 from prior bond so the 2001 Catholic marriage was valid after all and no convalidation was needed. In fact the convalidation is likely invalid due to lack of new consent( CIC Canons 1157 and1160) because the OP did not believe the 2001 marriage was invalid. That occurs when one or more of the spouses believed them to be (1) married, (2) or that the Catholic ceremony was merely a blessing, or that (3) the consent given during the Catholic ceremony had no real effect. The OP said “It troubled both of us to the point that I met with our priest again and asked him how we could have been sinning when we believed our marriage was absolutely valid for the last thirteen years.”

Therefore I believe that (with the assmptions mentioned earlier) that the recent convalidation is invalid and the 2001 was actually valid (but illicit). I believe 1ke also believes that 2001 was actually valid.

 

[Hopey]

I just want to say the OP is handling this very well. I am not sure I would be able to do this without getting very angry.
Prayers it is all settled quickly and if apologies need be, you get one quickly.

 

[Phemie]

Therefore I believe that (with the assmptions mentioned earlier) that the recent convalidation is invalid and the 2001 was actually valid (but illicit). I believe 1ke also believes that 2001 was actually valid.

I also believe his 2001 marriage was valid and that the convalidation was unnecessary.

 

[Hopey]

I also believe his 2001 marriage was valid and that the convalidation was unnecessary.

:yup:

 

[thewanderer]

We did not explain our situation to others in our parish after we found out about the need for a convalidation. Therefore going abruptly from receiving Communion for years to abstaining for a bit over a month I thought, and our priest did not disagree, that it would have been rather odd to see a lector not receive Communion.

In regard to your question about relations: Good question. As weak as it may sound, I don’t have an answer. We NFP and my wife had a horrible sore throat around the time we found out about our situation. We may or may not have just after we found out about the lack of form. Our priest did not tell us that in addition to abstaining from Communion we also needed to abstain from relations so it wasn’t something on our minds.

If I understand your question, you posit that our priest was telling each of us in confession that we must confess cohabiting from the time we found our our first marriage in The Church was invalid to the time of the confession, a period of a bit over a month? I don’t think that was it. He would have been making an assumption since he asked neither of us if we had relations during the brief period and in manner my wife took as stern she believed he meant cohabitation for the last thirteen years.

OP, I just wanted to add in that the bolded shows another aspect in which your case was not handled appropriately. Even if it were true that your marriage was invalid you would only need to refrain from communion if you were in a state of mortal sin. Living in the same house as someone of the opposite gender is not enough, in and of itself, to place you in mortal sin, and, even if your marriage was invalid and your living together without any knowledge of an invalid marriage was sinful, it could not be mortally sinful. Because of this it was wrong of your priest to advise you to refrain from communion. With his assumption that your marriage was invalid he should have advised you to refrain from marital relations and told you that if you did not then you would have to refrain from communion. I know this advice would still have been incorrect given that your marriage has always been valid, but given what your priest thought to be true this is the way he should have addressed the issue, not by assuming you were both in mortal sin and would continue in mortal sin and so telling you to refrain from communion.

 

[Vico]

Regarding the presumption of validity of a civil marriage for a Catholic at the time, it is not the norm to just say it is not valid off hand. Although there is not a judgment there is an administrative process whereby it must be established that there was not 1) defection, which means the catholic form was not required, that 2) the form was lacking when required (the catholic form was not dispensed), and that3) a convalidation did not occur later of the civil marriage. The Archdiocese of Boston has this: **Lack of form cases
**
This type of case is not judicial in nature, but rather administrative. In other words no judgment is required to overturn a presumption of validity. The invalidity of the marriage is obvious from the start.

As stated, a baptized Catholic, who has not left the church by a formal act must marry in the presence of a church official. This is the form of marriage and it is required for validity (cc. 1108-1123, 1127). If the proper form, being married in the presence of a priest or deacon, is not followed on the wedding day, the faith community does not recognize the union as a marriage. There is no presumption of validity in this instance. So there is no presumption in law to overturn.

For example, if two baptized Catholics decide to marry in the presence of a Justice of the Peace, instead of a priest, they have not observed the form of marriage. By choosing not to observe the proper form of marriage, they have chosen not to have their union recognized as a valid marriage by the faith community.

A good deal of the work for the initiation of these cases is done on the parish level. Parochial ministers gather documents to establish that the parties did not follow the proper form at the time of the wedding ceremony. The documents also establish the civil marriage in question was never subsequently validated in a church ceremony. After this administrative process is completed by the tribunal there is an opportunity to admonish parents regarding the fulfillment their parental obligations to the children born of the union. The Boston tribunal handles many of these cases each year.

After the administrative process is completed, either party would be free to marry in the Church. Neither is bound to the previous union because there was never a sacramental marriage in effect. Remember, marriage is brought about (c. 1057) through: (1) the consent of the parties (the bride and groom), (2) legitimately manifested, (3) by those qualified according to the law (again, the bride and the groom). From the outset it was never legally presumed that marriage had been brought about, as the parties never observed the correct form of marriage when they exchanged consent.
bostoncatholic.org/Offices-And-Services/Office-Detail.aspx?id=11866&pid=1408

 

[Phemie]

Regarding the presumption of validity of a civil marriage for a Catholic at the time, it is not the norm to just say it is not valid off hand. Although there is not a judgment there is an administrative process whereby it must be established that there was not 1) defection, which means the catholic form was not required, that 2) the form was lacking when required (the catholic form was not dispensed), and that3) a convalidation did not occur later of the civil marriage. %between%

Usually that’s all covered with the “Certificate of Baptism issued within the last 6 months.” If there was a defection it will be noted, a previous marriage and/or a previous convalidation will be noted.

Defections are so rare in North America that they are almost non-existent. Much more prevalent in countries like Germany with a ‘church tax’. There people publicly proclaim they are not Catholic (their baptismal parish is notified and it’s noted in their sacramental record) to avoid paying the tax. Then they get upset when they are denied the sacraments.

 

[Pater_Noster]

Therefore I believe that (with the assmptions mentioned earlier) that the recent convalidation is invalid and the 2001 was actually valid (but illicit). I believe 1ke also believes that 2001 was actually valid.

I also believe his 2001 marriage was valid and that the convalidation was unnecessary.

I’d like to thank everyone that has responded to my issue. I just joined the forum and already feel like all of you are family. That’s not a strange notion, fellow members of Christ’s Body.

I mentioned that I may pursue this, as suggested, with the St. Joseph’s society. However, out of everything that happened, the worst parts about it were refraining from receiving the Holy Eucharist, being told that we were sinning, being told that our marriage in 2001 was not valid and therefore was if it never existed in the eyes of The Church and refraining from being a Lector. Our priest was not as callous as the summary makes it sound as though he was. He’s a very traditional priest, which we are so very grateful for, in a land where many other priests are not.

This issue brought a brief period of great and emotional tumult. I’m just glad that we’re at peace again.

God bless you all!