Not all marriages are presumed valid unless proven otherwise?

[Stylteralmaldo]

I was under the impression that all marriages were considered valid unless proven otherwise. I got this impression because of what I have learned regarding the annulment process (which I admit I am certainly a novice).

It seems that with Father Serpa’s response to the question in the link I am providing, the opposite appears to be true. That instead of a marriage being presumed valid, it is presumed invalid unless proven to be valid.

For example, I have heard that if someone is looking to get married and have been previously married to someone else in which the marriage ended in divorce, the Church presumes the first marriage valid and therefore the couple looking to get married must remain celebate because it is presumed that since the first marriage has not been annulled, the first marriage is presumed valid meaning that if the couple had sexual relations it may mean (barring a nullity grant) that the previously married person would be committing adultery. That makes sense to me.

However, the Q&A statement from Fr. Serpa seems to say that the couple would be essentially fornicating since neither party has been previously married. This doesn’t seem to make sense to me because it presumes the marriage is invalid. Is this because one person was Catholic? Had the two of them been another faith, would the same standard apply? If the standards are different, please let me know why they are different so I can better understand.

Thanks!

Here’s the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=252693

 

[Phemie]

Most marriages are presumed valid but in the case in question you had a Catholic who had married outside the Church and obviously without the dispensation required. Such a marriage isn’t presumed valid.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Most marriages are presumed valid but in the case in question you had a Catholic who had married outside the Church and obviously without the dispensation required. Such a marriage isn’t presumed valid.

Does anyone know the rationale behind this? The person in the link wasn’t a confirmed Catholic. Perhaps someone can point me to some documents from the Church that explains this?

The situation actually hits close to home. A good friend of mine was Catholic and then met a Lutheran woman. He converted to the Lutheran faith and I was the best man at his wedding which was held in a Lutheran Church. He was never well grounded in his faith - maybe I wasn’t either even though I always thought I knew my faith pretty well.

It seems strange to me that they wouldn’t be considered a validly married couple. They’ve been together now for about fifteen years, maybe longer.

 

[CatholicCid]

As Phemie said, most marriages being reviewed for an annulment are presumed valid until proven otherwise.

The case Fr. Serpa is referencing, however, would seem to be a clear cut case.

The woman, a **baptized **Catholic, is bound by the laws and regulations of the Catholic Church in respect to marriage. Even though the woman was not confirmed, she was baptized in the Catholic Church, which means she is bound to Canon Law (in this case, she would have needed to seek out dispensations to marry outside of the Church).

As she did not follow the regulations, not sought out the proper dispensations, her marriage would not be seen valid in the eyes of the Church.

Had she not been a Catholic, this would be a different matter.

As for your friend, I believe the same would be true to him. If he were to return to the Church, he would need to go about having his marriage blessed.

This section from the CCC might help:

Mixed marriages and disparity of cult

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a non-baptized person) requires even greater circumspection.

1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.

**1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.137 In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.138 This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.139 **

1636 Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple’s obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.

1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."140 It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this “consecration” should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith.141 Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

Emphasis mine on what seemed to be most relevant.

 

[1ke]

Does anyone know the rationale behind this? The person in the link wasn’t a confirmed Catholic. Perhaps someone can point me to some documents from the Church that explains this?

It’s black and white in canon law. A baptized Catholic validly contracts marriage **only **in the Catholic Form unless dispensed from it.

Can. 1108 §1. **Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon **delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

The situation actually hits close to home. A good friend of mine was Catholic and then met a Lutheran woman. He converted to the Lutheran faith and I was the best man at his wedding which was held in a Lutheran Church. He was never well grounded in his faith - maybe I wasn’t either even though I always thought I knew my faith pretty well.

It seems strange to me that they wouldn’t be considered a validly married couple. They’ve been together now for about fifteen years, maybe longer.

Unless he made a formal act of defection (for which there are very specific steps he must take) then you are correct, he is not validly married from the Catholic Church’s standpoint. “Converting” to Lutheranism is not sufficient for a formal act of defection.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…Unless he made a formal act of defection (for which there are very specific steps he must take) then you are correct, he is not validly married from the Catholic Church’s standpoint. “Converting” to Lutheranism is not sufficient for a formal act of defection.

Ah. That makes sense. The Catholic Church still considers my friend a Catholic since he never formally turned in a “resignation letter” so to speak. In a secular sense, that would be like me finding another job without notifying my boss that I resign.

The difference is that in the secular sense my former employer probably has human resource instructions to terminate my relationship with that employer after a certain amount of time having passed. Whereas the Catholic Church does not wish to terminate its relationship with its members and is more tolerant (ironically) of keeping Christ’s followers within the flock.

I say it’s ironic because it appears that having to jump through hoops regarding a marriage outside of the Catholic Church as being intolerant of that married situation when in fact it isn’t intolerant at all.

Thank you for helping me understand the context more clearly! Also, thanks to those who supplied the relevent Catechism references.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Does anyone know the rationale behind this? The person in the link wasn’t a confirmed Catholic. Perhaps someone can point me to some documents from the Church that explains this?

The situation actually hits close to home. A good friend of mine was Catholic and then met a Lutheran woman. He converted to the Lutheran faith and I was the best man at his wedding which was held in a Lutheran Church. He was never well grounded in his faith - maybe I wasn’t either even though I always thought I knew my faith pretty well.

It seems strange to me that they wouldn’t be considered a validly married couple. They’ve been together now for about fifteen years, maybe longer.

A Baptized Catholic is required to Marry according to the laws of the Catholic Church for their Marriage to be considered valid. They both seem free to Marry, they just didn’t follow Catholic Form (requirements), for witneses, locations, vows?, etc. Normally Church law requires that the un-Confirmed Catholic be Confirmed before being allowed to Convalidate the Marriage.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…Normally Church law requires that the un-Confirmed Catholic be Confirmed before being allowed to Convalidate the Marriage.

That I believe. My married situation is unique itself. My wife was a Jehovah Witness (unpracticing) at the time we married. We had what is called a “good natural marriage” that wasn’t Sacramental. My wife was later Baptized thus making our marriage Sacramental at that point.

All the various directions regarding marriage being viewed by the Church can be confusing to grasp. A lot of the time however I can grasp the concepts, but this one through me for a loop.