Non-Sacramental Marriage Needs No Annulment?

[takers]

So I was reading “Catholicism for Dummies” last night as I thought it’d be fun and came across the section on Sacramental Marriages and how they require an annulment should the two people get a divorce. However, it got me thinking. For those that are married but NOT in a sacramental marriage (non-Catholic spouse isn’t baptised), if they get a divorce, would the Catholic still require an annulment to the marriage?

My marriage is in no danger of this! It was just an interesting thought I had last night that I wasn’t sure on the answer.

 

[MisterCorduroy]

Any civil marriage needs to be reviewed by the tribunal to be sure of its nullity. This can be as easy as filling out some paperwork and sending it in–no canon lawyers or trial necessary. For instance, a ligamen, given when someone marries someone with a prior bond can take as little as two weeks and just requires documentation that the prior bond existed. This is an invalid union, non sacramental, but still a declaration of nullity is granted.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The Church, presumably working in tandem with the appropriate civil authorities, can dissolve a natural marriage. In such a case an annulment would not only be unnecessary but inappropriate. An annulment is a declaration that a valid marriage never existed in the first place, but in the case of a dissolved natural marriage a valid marriage had been entered into and subsequently ended.

At least that’s how it seems to me it ought to work. I don’t know if canon law actually works a bit differently.

 

[1ke]

However, it got me thinking. For those that are married but NOT in a sacramental marriage (non-Catholic spouse isn’t baptised), if they get a divorce, would the Catholic still require an annulment to the marriage?

Possibly.

A natural marriage could be found invalid through the tribunal nullity process, if there are grounds, just like any other marriage.

However, since a natural marriage does not have the same indissoluable character of a sacramental marriage it is possible that it could be dissolved by the Petrine Privilege (baptized-nonbaptized) under some specific circumstances even if it is a valid natural marriage.

A natural marriage between two unbaptized people can also be dissolved by the Pauline Privilege in some cases as well.

 

[mek42]

I read the OP as asking about an invalid marriage, like a. Catholic and a non-Catholic getting JP marriage. Am I grossly misreading the OP?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I read the OP as asking about an invalid marriage, like a. Catholic and a non-Catholic getting JP marriage. Am I grossly misreading the OP?

I think you are. The OP is specifically asking about “those that are married but NOT in a sacramental marriage (non-Catholic spouse isn’t baptised)”. In other words Catholics in a valid but non-sacramental marriage (natural marriage).

 

[poustiniak]

So I was reading “Catholicism for Dummies” last night as I thought it’d be fun and came across the section on Sacramental Marriages and how they require an annulment should the two people get a divorce. However, it got me thinking. For those that are married but NOT in a sacramental marriage (non-Catholic spouse isn’t baptised), if they get a divorce, would the Catholic still require an annulment to the marriage?

My marriage is in no danger of this! It was just an interesting thought I had last night that I wasn’t sure on the answer.

What the hell makes you think that you can ask a question on this forum by quoting from “Catholics for Dummies”

 

[hotdiggity]

What the hell makes you think that you can ask a question on this forum by quoting from “Catholics for Dummies”

i found the book very helpful myself

 

[jmcrae]

So I was reading “Catholicism for Dummies” last night as I thought it’d be fun and came across the section on Sacramental Marriages and how they require an annulment should the two people get a divorce. However, it got me thinking. For those that are married but NOT in a sacramental marriage (non-Catholic spouse isn’t baptised), if they get a divorce, would the Catholic still require an annulment to the marriage?

My marriage is in no danger of this! It was just an interesting thought I had last night that I wasn’t sure on the answer.

You would want the Tribunal to be aware of the status of the original marriage before getting remarried, so you would get a ruling from them, even if you already know the answer yourself. Otherwise things get very messy.

 

[takers]

What the hell makes you think that you can ask a question on this forum by quoting from “Catholics for Dummies”

Because I can…and did. Duh. Honestly, I don’t get why you’re responding as if I’ve committed some atrocity by asking a question based on a passage read from a book THAT’s WRITTEN BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS. No, it’s not a deep theological memoir or a five dollar a word account of the intricacies of a single detail of the mass but it is an informative book.

I read the OP as asking about an invalid marriage, like a. Catholic and a non-Catholic getting JP marriage. Am I grossly misreading the OP?

No, not an invalid marriage. I’m referring to a couple, married in the Catholic church by a Priest with dispensation from the Bishop allowing for a Catholic to marry a non-baptised non-Catholic. (Whew, say that ten times fast!).

 

[nodito]

I’m referring to a couple, married in the Catholic church by a Priest with dispensation from the Bishop allowing for a Catholic to marry a non-baptised non-Catholic.

This is a presumed valid marriage. If either party wishes to marry someone else, it would first need to be determined that the original marriage was null (i.e., an anullment granted). It may be or it may not be.

It’s my understanding that Pauline and Petrine privilege would not apply in this case since one party was already Catholic and the Church granted a dispensation for the marriage. 1ke?

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Because I can…and did. Duh. Honestly, I don’t get why you’re responding as if I’ve committed some atrocity by asking a question based on a passage read from a book THAT’s WRITTEN BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS. No, it’s not a deep theological memoir or a five dollar a word account of the intricacies of a single detail of the mass but it is an informative book.

I got that same reaction from a Catholic I know in real life when I told her I was reading that book. But guess what? I now know that you’re not supposed to say Hail Marys during Mass and some of my Catholic friends didn’t know that until I showed them. So maybe more people should be picking it up!

 

[takers]

I got that same reaction from a Catholic I know in real life when I told her I was reading that book. But guess what? I now know that you’re not supposed to say Hail Marys during Mass and some of my Catholic friends didn’t know that until I showed them. So maybe more people should be picking it up!

My favorite nugget so far are the reasons why Priests robe’s change colors during the season. I know that they did and it was based on the liturgical calendar but I didn’t realize what every different color meant in regards to that season so that was cool to find out.

 

[mek42]

Because I can…and did. Duh. Honestly, I don’t get why you’re responding as if I’ve committed some atrocity by asking a question based on a passage read from a book THAT’s WRITTEN BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS. No, it’s not a deep theological memoir or a five dollar a word account of the intricacies of a single detail of the mass but it is an informative book.

No, not an invalid marriage. I’m referring to a couple, married in the Catholic church by a Priest with dispensation from the Bishop allowing for a Catholic to marry a non-baptised non-Catholic. (Whew, say that ten times fast!).

Thank you for explaining. Apologies for misunderstanding. I get confused still by the intricacies of marriage vs Matrimony.

 

[dans0622]

…

It’s my understanding that Pauline and Petrine privilege would not apply in this case since one party was already Catholic and the Church granted a dispensation for the marriage. 1ke?

Hello,

Certainly, the Pauline Privilege cannot apply since both parties have to be unbaptized (c. 1143). A “Petrine” case is possible provided that the petitioner intends to marry a baptized person (see the 2001 Norms of the CDF, titled Potestas ecclesiae, art. 7).

Dan