Not your normal annulment scenario

[tony-nj]

Because this is unusual, I won’t try to tell the entire “story” of it, but just specific facts. My question is does this look to be eligible for a simple “Documentation case” annulment. The order of the facts tell the timeline:

Person A was born and baptized Catholic.
Person B was born but not baptized.

Person A and B were married in a Protestant Church with no dispensation.

Years later, Person A received the sacraments of first communion and confirmation on the same day.

Two years after that, Person B received the sacraments of baptism, first communion and confirmation on the same day.

After that, the priest told them that they needed to have their marriage blessed by the Church. Person B refuses stating they do not need anyone to tell them that they are already married. Person A asks Person B many times to have their marriage blessed at least for Person A’s sake because Person A wants to obey the priest. Person B completely refuses.

Years later, they divorce.

Now, after many hours of searching the web, I have not come across this particular scenario. I’ve asked this of a person who advertises as specializing in canon law, and they did not know. I have an appointment with my local priest to get the ball rolling on the annulment process. His initial reaction was that he wanted our Deacon to sit in because the Deacon has much more experience in the annulment process (we have a young priest).

In the scenarios that I have seen, the answer given is that after the non baptized spouse comes into the Church and receives their sacraments, the marriage is retroactively made valid and sacramental. However, in this case, the spouse explicitly refuses to have the Church bless the marriage. Not out of ignorance, but clearly defiant. I know this sounds crazy, because who would do something like that? But it’s a true scenario. I suppose the “conversion” was just a CYA in case Hell does exist. Needless to say, Person B was a Christmas and Easter only mass attendee.

So, who would like to make a prediction as to how this will go? Open and shut “Documentation case”?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Whomever administered these later Sacraments dropped the ball.

Person A needs a current copy of their baptismal certificate with notations. If there is no marriage notation, it is a documentary case.

 

[tony-nj]

Person A just picked up the documentation about an hour ago Under Marriage Date and Place, it says “No other notations”.

Whomever administered these later Sacraments dropped the ball.

Or, maybe God poked it out of his hands as a blessing!

 

[1ke]

In the scenarios that I have seen, the answer given is that after the non baptized spouse comes into the Church and receives their sacraments, the marriage is retroactively made valid and sacramental.

I don’t know who would give that answer because it is not correct. Hopefully not any Catholic clergy or those who work in the Church.

Although I can confirm that two non-Catholics already in a valid marriage need no action regarding their marriage if one or both of them become Catholic precisely because their marriage is already valid.

Perhaps whoever told you the above was conflating two different situations. However even so they aren’t correct because a valid natural marriage remains valid and becomes a sacrament if both parties are validly baptized, Catholic or not. But there is nothing “retroactive” about it.

And of course the situation you give is completely different since it involves a Catholic.

Open and shut “Documentation case”?

This is a misnomer. This not a nullity case at all.

A Catholic married outside the Church without dispensation, and with no convalidation (either simple or sanation), is not married validly and has no putative marriage.

There is no decree of nullity case. There is an investigation of freedom to marry that includes producing marriage, divorce, and sacramental records.

The Catholic pursuing confirmation and the non-Catholic pursuing initiation should have been deferred in that regard until the marriage was convalidated. But that is neither here nor there if it wasn’t, then mistakes were made but none that change the validity of the sacraments of initiation and none that make the marriage valid.

Because this is unusual,

There isn’t really anything unusual and I have no idea why you could not receive a straight answer.

 

[tony-nj]

I don’t know who would give that answer because it is not correct. Hopefully not any Catholic clergy or those who work in the Church.

I’ve seen it in articles. Perhaps I mispoke saying it is retroactively made valid and sacramental. To be more precise, the articles state it was valid and it becomes sacramental after the other spouse becomes baptized.

Although I can confirm that two non-Catholics already in a valid marriage need no action regarding their marriage if one or both of them become Catholic precisely because their marriage is already valid.

In this case, a baptized person married a non baptized person.

A Catholic married outside the Church without dispensation, and with no convalidation (either simple or sanation), is not married validly and has no putative marriage.

Person A was baptized Catholic at birth, but did not attend mass up until after being married. They can be considered a Catholic married outside the Church?

Thank you for your answers 1ke.

 

[1ke]

To be more precise, the articles state it was valid and it becomes sacramental after the other spouse becomes baptized.

That is accurate for marriages that are already valid, natural marriages.

That isn’t the case here. So that has no bearing on this situation.

In this case, a baptized person married a non baptized person.

The same would also apply. A valid natural marriage would become a valid sacramental marriage if the non baptized party became baptized.

BUT your original scenario involved a Catholic who was NOT validly married. So none of what you read applies to that situation. The article was talking about valid marriages only.

Person A was baptized Catholic at birth, but did not attend mass up until after being married. They can be considered a Catholic married outside the Church?

Yes. A person baptized Catholic is Catholic.

 

[Horton]

Not really. There was never a valid marriage to begin with so there would have been nothing to record. What should have happened is the situation should have been addressed prior to Person B being received into the Church, while he/she was still in RCIA.

The whole time after Person B’s reception into the Church I assume they received the Eucharist which they should not have, given they were Catholics in an invalid marriage. I’m sure they did not know this so their culpability is reduced but whoever was leading RCIA at that time SHOULD have known.

 

[Horton]

So, who would like to make a prediction as to how this will go?

It will go with very little trouble. It’s not unusual at all. It’s actually a very easy matter to clear up.

 

[tony-nj]

The whole time after Person B’s reception into the Church I assume they received the Eucharist which they should not have, given they were Catholics in an invalid marriag

So now that they are civilly divorced, there is no issue with receiving the Eucharist?

 

[Horton]

You should ask your priest.

 

[tony-nj]

Met with my priest and deacon today. They decided that it was an invalid marriage, but I still have to get a Documentation Event annulment. Wasn’t quite clear on why if it was never valid, but I will follow through. They said it will be an easy process that shouldn’t take long.

Also, regarding receiving the Eucharist, it is ok since we are no longer together, and confession was made.

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)uts.

 

[JulianN]

Wasn’t quite clear on why if it was never valid, but I will follow through.

It wasn’t valid because, as a baptized Catholic, you were obligated to marry in the Church or have received a dispensation to marry outside the Church.

 

[TheLittleLady]

They decided that it was an invalid marriage, but I still have to get a Documentation Event annulment.

Simply a Documentary Case, not an annulment. Paperwork. Present the appropriate baptismal, marriage certificates and divorce decree. Takes a couple of weeks.

 

[tony-nj]

Thank you Julian. I understood why it wasn’t valid. What I was confused about was why I still had to get an annulment if it was not valid, as opposed to a marriage that seems to be valid, but null. LittleLady explained it though… that it isn’t an annulment, just documentation.

 

[1ke]

What I was confused about was why I still had to get an annulment if it was not valid

LittleLady explained it though…

Right.

You don’t have to get an annulment.

What you are being asked to do is document your freedom to marry.