Mormon Annulment? Help Decipher

[exMormon]

Help!

Not sure if this is the right place to ask. Here goes:

• I an an ExMormon who married another Mormon (by Mormon Bishop at home). Later got sealed in the Temple.
• Divorced and married another Mormon (in Mormon church). We asked to have our records removed from the Mormon church (quit church). We became Anglican and got baptised (not confirmed).
• Now wanting to join Catholic Church.

Having problems understanding the below document and what it means. It is a large document:

“RESPONSE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM CONFERRED IN THE
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-navarrete_en.html

With this premise, the first consequence to be emphasized is that the marriage of Mormons contracted among themselves or with a validly baptized person is not sacramental marriage (can. 1055), and therefore the essential properties of marriage, unity and indissolubility, do not achieve that “special stability by reason of the sacrament” that is proper to Christian marriage (can. 1056). In other words, marriage contracted among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with a baptized party is not a ratum marriage, nor therefore a ratum et consummatum, even “if the spouses have completed in a human way the act which is per se appropriate for the generation of children, to which marriage is ordered by its very nature” (cf. can. 1061).

What does this mean if I want an annulment from my first marriage?

 

[Z_Ninja]

I would suggest you may want to speak with a priest to provide a better explanation. It sounds to me it is saying that since marriage in the LDS church is not considered a valid sacrament, the civil divorce would suffice and no annulment is necessary, but you will have to re-marry in a Catholic Church to have your current marriage be considered valid.

but again, I may be wrong, and you should speak to a priest.

 

[Columba_Tom]

You might want to forward this question to “Ask an Apologist” on Catholic Answers.
I think the document is saying your Mormon marriages were as pre-marital relationships, rather than a visible sign of something true in spiritual terms.

Your wonderful and brave journey will be recalled before the Blessed Sacrament tomorrow.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What does this mean if I want an annulment from my first marriage?

The document really doesn’t impact the annulment process, whereby your first marriage will be examined for validity.

What the document does is to give you another option, that of Pauline Privilege, whereby your first marriage, even if valid, is dissolved in favor of your second marriage.

 

[Fr_P]

I would suggest that your first marriage is a valid but not sacramental marriage. It can be dissolved using Pauline Privilege. Dissolution is not Annulment, but a favour of the faith.

Your second marriage was not valid as you had a previous bond of marriage.

Once your first marriage has been dissolved by the Catholic Church your second marriage can be validated by a simple ceremony where you take your marriage vows anew.

I may be wrong, as I am not a Canon Lawyer, but the above would be how I would approach the question. The validity of Baptism is important as it determines whether your first marriage was a sacrament (which cannot be dissolved) or a natural bond (which can be dissolved in favour of the faith).

 

[SMHW]

e

The document really doesn’t impact the annulment process, whereby your first marriage will be examined for validity.

What the document does is to give you another option, that of Pauline Privilege, whereby your first marriage, even if valid, is dissolved in favor of your second marriage.

Yes, this.

Mormon marriages are presumed valid by the Catholic Church but since Mormon baptisms are not considered valid, Mormon marriages are usually not sacramental. Non-sacramental marriages don’t remove the need for nullity proceedings but there is then then potential option of having the non-sacramental valid marriage dissolved.

 

[Snowball7]

Your particular situation falls under the Ligamen process
because your Baptisms in the Anglican church are valid.
see:
dioceseofbmt.org/lifelong/content/resources/ValidNon-ValidBaptisms(Rev09).pdf

then refer to this:
diocs.org/Portals/1/Documents/Tribunal/Decision_matrix.pdf

Your next move should be setting up a meeting with your Catholic
parish, find out which parish you would be in based on your specific
geographic location and call the rectory.

 

[1ke]

What does this mean if I want an annulment from my first marriage?

This means that your first wife is currently considered unbaptized (if she is still Mormon and was never validly baptized in a Trinitarian protestant church).

Since she is unbaptized, that leaves open the option of **dissolution of the bond **under the Pauline or Petrine Privilege if the marriage is valid or the possibilty of a decree of nullity if the marriage has grounds for being found invalid.

You and your current wife are now both validly baptized from your Anglican baptism.

You make no mention of any previous marriage on the part of your current spouse, so if she has never been married before what that leaves is for your first marriage to be dealt with so that you and she can move forward with coming into full communion with the Catholic Church.

The next step is for you to make an appointment to talk to your local parish pastor who can help you start paperwork with the Tribunal to pursue either a *decree of nullity *or a *dissolution of the bond *via the “favor of the faith”-- Petrine Privilege or possibly Pauline Privilege.

 

[1ke]

I would suggest you may want to speak with a priest to provide a better explanation. It sounds to me it is saying that since marriage in the LDS church is not considered a valid sacrament, the civil divorce would suffice and no annulment is necessary, but you will have to re-marry in a Catholic Church to have your current marriage be considered valid.

but again, I may be wrong, and you should speak to a priest.

This is not correct.

Marriages between the unbpatized are valid marriages. They are valid, natural marriages.

Marriage between the baptized would be a valid, sacramental marriage.

So, he will need to talk to the tribunal regarding a decree of nullity. However, natural marriages are not indissoluable so he may be able to seek a dissolution of the bond instead of a decree of nullity.

 

[SMHW]

Your particular situation falls under the Ligamen process
because your Baptisms in the Anglican church are valid.
see:
dioceseofbmt.org/lifelong/content/resources/ValidNon-ValidBaptisms(Rev09).pdf

then refer to this:
diocs.org/Portals/1/Documents/Tribunal/Decision_matrix.pdf

Your next move should be setting up a meeting with your Catholic
parish, find out which parish you would be in based on your specific
geographic location and call the rectory.

Those references might be good. I haven’t looked.

But in this case the valid Anglican baptism would have no sacramental impact on the OP’s first marriage unless the ex-spouse was also at some point validly baptized.

I presume all this information will need to be investigated.

 

[SpeSalvi]

As another former LDS-turned-Catholic, I have looked into this a bit myself (although I’ve never had to directly deal with it).

Here’s a fairly basic jist of it…

Baptized person marries a baptized person = Valid
Unbaptized person marries an unbaptized person = Valid
Baptized person married an unbaptized person (without prior approval, etc) = Invalid
One unbaptized spouse gets baptized but the other refuses baptism = Pauline Priviledge- The marriage is dissolved

In your specific case, your first marriage (assuming your ex-wife never got baptized into another sect of Christianity) will be dissolved under the Pauline priviledge. Since, in the Catholic Church, you were never validly married to your second wife since you’re still married to your first, you’ll need to have your marriage convalidated (blessed) by the Catholic Church so that’s a valid marriage.

Contact your local parish (if you haven’t already) and speak with someone about getting that first marriage taken care of, and then validly marry your wife!
Good luck, friend There are a lot of ex LDS on here, and you’ll find the majority of us in the Non-Catholic Religions section dialoguing with current members of the LDS Church.

 

[1ke]

Your particular situation falls under the Ligamen process
because your Baptisms in the Anglican church are valid.

Ligamen would not apply in this case. He is the one petitioning for nullity of his **first **marriage, which would not have Ligamen grounds. He is not attempting to prove nullity of his second marriage, which he is still in.

Ligamen would apply if he and his **2nd **wife divorced and she was wanting to remarry. She could claim that her marriage to him was invalid due to Ligamen.

Your next move should be setting up a meeting with your Catholic parish, find out which parish you would be in based on your specific geographic location and call the rectory.

Yes, absolutely.

 

[1ke]

Baptized person married an unbaptized person (without prior approval, etc) = Invalid

This is not accurate if we are talking about two non-Catholics. This would be a valid marriage.

In your specific case, your first marriage (assuming your ex-wife never got baptized into another sect of Christianity) will be dissolved under the Pauline priviledge.

Maybe.

Since, in the Catholic Church, you were never validly married to your second wife since you’re still married to your first, you’ll need to have your marriage convalidated (blessed) by the Catholic Church so that’s a valid marriage.

Neither of this is Catholic, so this is not exaclty true.

Contact your local parish

Absolutely.

 

[Snowball7]

Ligamen would not apply in this case. He is the one petitioning for nullity of his **first **marriage, which would not have Ligamen grounds. He is not attempting to prove nullity of his second marriage, which he is still in.

Ligamen would apply if he and his **2nd **wife divorced and she was wanting to remarry. She could claim that her marriage to him was invalid due to Ligamen.

Yes, absolutely.

Well, Ligamen may still apply because the Church doesn’t recognize
the first marriage, it is no longer Civil or Natural. The present marriage
is both Civil and Natural, neither are Sacramental.
Anyway, the poster should contact the local Catholic rectory
and if they are serious, that is what they will do. No answer here
will be as sound as that.

 

[Cider]

e

Yes, this.

Mormon marriages are presumed valid by the Catholic Church but since Mormon baptisms are not considered valid, Mormon marriages are usually not sacramental. Non-sacramental marriages don’t remove the need for nullity proceedings but there is then then potential option of having the non-sacramental valid marriage dissolved.

Yes, it’s just not a sacramental marriage according to the Catholic Church ( which requires both parties to be validly baptized Christians), but it’s still viewed as a valid natural marriage.

 

[Cider]

Well, Ligamen may still apply because the Church doesn’t recognize
the first marriage, it is no longer Civil or Natural. The present marriage
is both Civil and Natural, neither are Sacramental.
Anyway, the poster should contact the local Catholic rectory
and if they are serious, that is what they will do. No answer here
will be as sound as that.

On what grounds are you claiming the Church would not recognize the first marriage? If it was a first marriage for both parties then it’s a valid natural marriage according to the Catholic Church. Just not a sacramental marriage, the OPs later Anglican baptism does not automatically invalidate his first marriage.

 

[1ke]

Well, Ligamen may still apply because the Church doesn’t recognize the first marriage, it is no longer Civil or Natural.

This is not correct at all.

Ligamen applies when a prior bond exists. It does not apply to the examination of the fisrt marriage. The first marriage is the one he is seeking to declare null or to dissolve.

It is presumed valid. It is a valid natural marriage until it is proven otherwise.

The present marriage is both Civil and Natural, neither are Sacramental.

This is not correct either.

The second marriage is currently considered invalid due to a prior bond. It is not a natural marriage.

If the first marriage is found to be invalid, the second one would be valid and since both are baptized it would also be a sacrament.

 

[exMormon]

Wow! What great responses!

Clarification: I am in marriage number 2. We both left the Mormon church and got baptised Anglican recently. * Previous Mormon Spouse got remarried to another Mormon. Have no idea if that helps.

Going back to the passage:

• Mormons (Latter Day Saints / Mormons) are not considered baptised Christians.
• Not sacramental Marriage when two Mormons marry.
• What does “ratum” mean in the context of the sentence?
• What does “ratum et consummatum” mean?

With this premise, the first consequence to be emphasized is that the marriage of Mormons contracted among themselves or with a validly baptized person is not sacramental marriage (can. 1055), and therefore the essential properties of marriage, unity and indissolubility, do not achieve that “special stability by reason of the sacrament” that is proper to Christian marriage (can. 1056). In other words, marriage contracted among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with a baptized party is not a ratum marriage, nor therefore a ratum et consummatum, even “if the spouses have completed in a human way the act which is per se appropriate for the generation of children, to which marriage is ordered by its very nature” (cf. can. 1061).

 

[Cider]

Wow! What great responses!

Clarification: I am in marriage number 2. We both left the Mormon church and got baptised Anglican recently. * Previous Mormon Spouse got remarried to another Mormon. Have no idea if that helps.

Going back to the passage:

• Mormons (Latter Day Saints / Mormons) are not considered baptised Christians.
• Not sacramental Marriage when two Mormons marry.
• What does “ratum” mean in the context of the sentence?
• What does “ratum et consummatum” mean?

With this premise, the first consequence to be emphasized is that the marriage of Mormons contracted among themselves or with a validly baptized person is not sacramental marriage (can. 1055), and therefore the essential properties of marriage, unity and indissolubility, do not achieve that “special stability by reason of the sacrament” that is proper to Christian marriage (can. 1056). In other words, marriage contracted among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with a baptized party is not a ratum marriage, nor therefore a ratum et consummatum, even “if the spouses have completed in a human way the act which is per se appropriate for the generation of children, to which marriage is ordered by its very nature” (cf. can. 1061).

They are referring to the marital act ( IE sexual consummation) Jimmy Akin explains it here and quotes the canon associated with it

jimmyakin.com/2008/05/sacramental-mar.html

So there are two kinds of valid–and thus sacramental–marriages between the baptized: those that are established but unconsummated (ratum tantum) and those that are established and consummated (ratum et consummatum). Hence consummation is not necessary for validity or, between the baptized, for sacramentality.

 

[1ke]

• Mormons (Latter Day Saints / Mormons) are not considered baptised Christians.

Correct.

• Not sacramental Marriage when two Mormons marry.

Correct.

• What does “ratum” mean in the context of the sentence?

It means ratified. It means a valid, sacramental marriage. A marriage becomes ratum at the point the couple exchanges consent before the priest and witnesses.

The term ratum tantum means a valid marriage between two baptized persons that has not yet been consummated.

• What does “ratum et consummatum” mean?

Ratified and consummated.

*Ratum tantum *and *ratum et consummatum *are canonical terms that do not apply to marriages of the unbaptized. Therefore, they really mean nothing to you. They have to do with the indissoluability of valid marriages between the baptized.

The paragraph is basically saying that the marriages of the unbaptized, in this case Mormons, do not take on the sacramental character of marriage.