Protestants and annulments

[JulianN]

As 1Ke mentioned, that would involve the Petrine Privilege, but those cases are quite rare.

 

[neophyte]

Would a civilly divorced Protestant need to seek a Catholic decree of nullity to be free to date?

As I understand it, only the Catholic Church has the actual authority to declare nullity, so it seems to me that, strictly speaking, the answer is yes. However, a Protestant by definition wouldn’t recognize the Church’s authority.

A while back I asked if a Protestant couple could, in theory, petition a tribunal for a decree of nullity, and the best answer I got was:
"Regarding your question, if it is necessary to determine the marital status (as far as the Catholic Church is concerned) of anyone, Catholic or not, then the marriage can be examined by a tribunal. “Necessity” would be determined, ultimately, by the Judicial Vicar or Judge assigned to the case. From Dignitas connubii : "Art. 3 – § 1. The matrimonial causes of the baptized pertain by right to the ecclesiastical judge (can. 1671).

§ 2. However, an ecclesiastical judge hears only those causes of the nullity of marriage of non-Catholics, whether baptized or unbaptized, in which it is necessary to establish the free state of at least one party before the Catholic Church…"

In the case of two Protestants, it seems clear to me that there’s no such necessity because neither of them submit to the authority of the Church.

 

[TULIPed]

This was not just because of Catholic teaching, it was also because married-separated-divorced men had a lot of baggage.

For the record, single-never married-men have a lot of baggage. Like a lot. Like won’t-fit-in-the-overhead, over 50lbs, please-go-to-the-oversized-dropoff-at-the-end-of-the-ticket-counter, baggage. Just ask my wife.

 

[Anne1964]

To answer your question about my marriage, no I was not free to remarry until I received a declaration of nullity from the Tribunal.

 

[MarkRome]

Don’t forget to add consummated. A valid, sacramental marriage must also be consummated in order for it to be indissoluble.

 

[Phemie]

So you think that someone who is forced to marry or feels they have no choice in the matter are entering a valid marriage? The Church says a marriage is only valid if it’s entered into willingly.

You think the person who gets married with no intention of giving up extramarital affairs is entering a valid marriage?

You think the person who gets married thinking, “Well, I’ll give it a shot and if it doesn’t work out I’ll get a divorce and find someone else” is entering a valid marriage?

 

[thistle]

No, I’m not. I’m saying the exact opposite.

The Tribunal is investigating whether the marriage in question had an impediment to the Sacrament. It may not have had an impediment to the civil marriage, but that marriage is already divorced, in the eyes of the State.

The marriage is assumed to be a Sacrament by the Church, so long as the investigation finds no proof of an impediment.

The Tribunal will not guarantee validity of a marriage, rather the marriage is assumed a Sacrament, which cannot be divorced, unless proven to have had an impediment at the time of the wedding.

I have not read the posts prior to this but a Tribunal does not investigate an impediment to the Sacrament. A Tribunal investigates whether a marriage is valid or not.
Assuming no impediments to two atheists marrying their marriage would be valid but not sacramental.
A sacramental marriage can only be between two baptised persons (man/woman of course).

 

[Patri]

In the case of two Protestants, it seems clear to me that there’s no such necessity because neither of them submit to the authority of the Church.

So if I’m understanding correctly, a divorced Protestant is free to marry another protestant because they do believe in remarriage and so would not be sinning and they are not under the Catholic Church. For that protestant to marry a Catholic, they would have to go through the tribunal to see if the previous marriage was valid, as though not sacramental, if not proven otherwise, it would be a valid marriage.

 

[ProfFF]

I am ignorant to annulments. Could someone please provide me with a definition of this.

 

[neophyte]

So if I’m understanding correctly, a divorced Protestant is free to marry another protestant because they do believe in remarriage and so would not be sinning and they are not under the Catholic Church.

No. Even for non-Catholics, a valid, consummated marriage between baptized people ends only on the death of one of the spouses, and marriages are presumed valid unless proven otherwise by a competent tribunal (which only exists in the Catholic Church). A civilly divorced Protestant is not free to remarry merely because he thinks he is.

 

[Patri]

Aaah, thanks. Then they are seriously being led astray by their pastors as most people I know see it as very normal to remarry.

 

[Ammi]

@JulianN and @1ke

I see what I was confused about now. I thought that only a Sacrament (valid marriage between two Baptized) was considered indissoluable.

So while I understood there are natural marriages between unBaptized (one or both) people, I thought those were always able to rely on the Pauline privilege, when one or both wanted divorce, whether valid or not.

Julian, when you kept saying, “It doesn’t matter if it was a sacrament.” That was giving me the wrong impression of what you were trying to say.

It definitely matters. It just depends on whether the couple was Baptized before their wedding. And validity determines whether those were a Sacrament, or not. Validity being assumed, unless proven to have an impediment.

So, again, what I didnt realize was that not all valid natural marriages can be dissolved through the Pauline Privilege, when one or both spouses have filed divorce.

 

[JulianN]

It definitely matters. It just depends on whether the couple was Baptized before their wedding. And validity determines whether those were a Sacrament, or not. Validity being assumed, unless proven to have an impediment.

Validity doesn’t determine whether it was a sacrament – the baptismal state of the spouses does. And indeed, validity is presumed unless there is a lack or defect of form.

What people, including me, were trying to make clear, is that the Tribunal makes no determination about whether a marriage was sacramental, or whether there was a “sacramental bond.” What they investigate is whether or not the marriage was valid.

 

[thistle]

Validity doesn’t determine whether it was a sacrament – the baptismal state of the spouses does. And indeed, validity is presumed unless there is a lack or defect of form.

What people, including me, were trying to make clear, is that the Tribunal makes no determination about whether a marriage was sacramental, or whether there was a “sacramental bond.” What they investigate is whether or not the marriage was valid.

I completely agree.
Ammi still has not understood.

 

[Ammi]

What they investigate is whether or not the marriage was valid.

My point was that the tribunal does not determine if the marriage is valid, but assumes it is, unless an impediment is proven with moral certitude. So the tribunal scrutinizes to find an impediment.

So while “validity” determines the marriage, and the Baptismal state determines if it is a Sacrament or not (which I never disageeed) I now understand a mixed marriage can also be indissoluable.

I was addressing the final goal of the tribunal. To determine if the couple is bound by the marriage in question. And because I thought a Sacrament was the only indissoluable marriage, that’s what I concluded was the final purpose of the investigation.

Rather, the final purpose is to determine if the marriage in question is dissoluable or not.

 

[Ammi]

Not really. I am clear now, that a mixed marriage, or valid natural marriage cant always rely on the Pauline privilege.

Julian was stressing that validity is the means to determine a marriage (which I didnt disagree)and that it doeant matter if it’s a Sacrament or not (which I did and still do disagree).

What matters, and so is the purpose of the tribunal, is to determine if a marriage is still binding or not.

 

[thistle]

Not really. I am clear now, that a mixed marriage, or valid natural marriage cant always rely on the Pauline privilege.

Julian was stressing that validity is the means to determine a marriage (which I didnt disagree)and that it doeant matter if it’s a Sacrament or not (which I did and still do disagree).

What matters, and so is the purpose of the tribunal, is to determine if a marriage is still binding or dissolved through the divorce which took place.

Sorry that is still not correct.

The ONLY thing a tribunal considers is whether the marriage is valid or not. Nothing else.

 

[1ke]

I am clear now, that a mixed marriage, or valid natural marriage cant always rely on the Pauline privilege.

No, no, no. This is not accurate.

A mixed marriage is a marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic.
A disparity of cult is a marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person.

NEITHER Of those is a case where Pauline Privilege would be used.

Pauline Privilege only applies to two unbaptized people, one of whom is seeking baptism in the Church.

 

[Ammi]

For what purpose?

 

[thistle]

For what purpose?

Really???

For example, if a Catholic wishes to marry a non-Catholic who is divorced the Tribunal investigates whether the marriage of the divorced non-Catholic is valid or not. If they find it to be valid then the Catholic is not permitted to marry the non-Catholic.