Quick question about annulment/divorce

[Dan_Daly]

I think what is happening is a misunderstanding of terms, where different people see the same word and have different definitions in mind.

Fornication can mean:

#1. The act of 2 unmarried people having sex together.

#2. The sin of 2 unmarried people having sex together.

Catholic A and Catholic B go down to the courthouse and “get married” without their bishops dispensation. They then have sexual relations.

#1 has happened. #2 may or may not have.

Pax

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If a Catholic in Europe wishes to marry a formerly-married Lutheran, is there any investigation into the marriage of the Lutheran fiance required prior to the marriage?

Of course. That would be a full tribunal nullity case.

I am not talking about non Catholics.

Dan Daly:

Is an invalid marriage a marriage?

No. It is not.

It is the equivalent to not getting married, because…they didn’t get married.

Matters of culpability are seperate from the question of whether or not a marriage existed.

Pax

You gotta love it. It seems the further you get away from the statement “We Catholics are better than you” the more the answers are missing. In your question the Lutheran has to show reasonable proof that they are “free to marry” as does the catholic. Since the person in this question pledged a lifelong marriage to another that is a problem. The shorter process is because when the Catholic Church did not grant a sacrament there is no sacramental record to correct. So the Lutheran only has to show the attempt to form a lifelong partnership failed, no bond resulted. A catholic has to explain why they maintained a desire for a sacramental marriage through a waiting period, through marriage preparation classes, through catechism class on marriage…… Then the catholic church has to converse with the Churches of baptism of both catholic parties (where records are kept),… so you see there is quite abet more to it. ( same was true of Sarah)

(of course I say all this hoping you set it up)

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think what is happening is a misunderstanding of terms, where different people see the same word and have different definitions in mind.

Fornication can mean:

#1. The act of 2 unmarried people having sex together.

#2. The sin of 2 unmarried people having sex together.

Catholic A and Catholic B go down to the courthouse and “get married” without their bishops dispensation. They then have sexual relations.

#1 has happened. #2 may or may not have.

Pax

Have a question to avoid?
FYI Let me refer you to the canon lawyers on the subject

**Do only Catholics need annulments? Do only Catholic marriages need to be annulled?
No and no. **In the regular course, non-Catholics only need an annulment if they desire to marry a Catholic. But if a non-Catholic has been married to another non-Catholic, and that person now wants to marry a Catholic, then the non-Catholic is going to need an annulment before the Catholic can be validly married in the Church.

Only a Catholic is bound to marry according to the form prescribed by the Catholic Church (i.e. before a Catholic priest or deacon and at least two additional witnesses) unless dispensed from this requirement by the bishop or his delegate. However, the Church recognizes the marriage of two non-Catholics, or a Catholic and a non-Catholic whether they marry in their own church/or non-Christian place of worship, another church or in a civil ceremony (justice of the peace) as long as the ceremony is valid according to civil law. From the perspective of the Catholic Church, therefore, non-Catholics are considered to be validly married persons unless the former spouse has died or the marriage has been declared null by the Catholic Church. Since the Church has the right to determine who may be married in the Catholic Church, it can make a judgment on the validity of the marriage of two non-Catholics if one requests this in order that he or she might be able to marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church. canonlawprofessionals.com/annulmentquestions.html#Q3

 

[Dan_Daly]

I’m don’t understand the point of what you are quoting.

So Catholics are required to get married in the Church or have their bishop’s dispensation, for the marriage to be vaild…but if they don’t follow that requirement their marriage will still be considered valid?

I think where you and I may be disconnecting is that you are focused on whether there is a finding of nullity, and I am speaking of the reality of whether or not the marriage is invalid.

If a man is arrested for murder, there is a presumption of innocence. If the charges go to trial, a jury may find the man guilty or not guilty. That presumption of innocence and the finding of the jury are seperate from the reality of whether or not the man is guilty of murder. He either murdered someone or he didn’t. A jury may find him guilty if he didn’t or not guilty if he did.

Likewise, we may presume a marriage is valid, which is in fact invalid. Any finding of nullity is a declaration that a marriage was invalid from the beginning. Two people are either married or they are not, independent of what any presumption about the situation is.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

1. The 6th Commandment forbids sexual relations between unmarried persons.
2. Marriage within the Church or the dispensation of a Bishop is required for a Catholic to validly marry.

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

Have a question to avoid?

I don’t understand this comment. Is there something you think I am avoiding? Please explain, so I can try to be more helpful.

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

Only a Catholic is bound to marry according to the form prescribed by the Catholic Church (i.e. before a Catholic priest or deacon and at least two additional witnesses) unless dispensed from this requirement by the bishop or his delegate. However, the Church recognizes the marriage of two non-Catholics, or a Catholic and a non-Catholic whether they marry in their own church/or non-Christian place of worship, another church or in a civil ceremony (justice of the peace) as long as the ceremony is valid according to civil law. From the perspective of the Catholic Church, therefore, non-Catholics are considered to be validly married persons unless the former spouse has died or the marriage has been declared null by the Catholic Church. Since the Church has the right to determine who may be married in the Catholic Church, it can make a judgment on the validity of the marriage of two non-Catholics if one requests this in order that he or she might be able to marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church

A few more observations on this:

1. This is commentary on Canon law, not a quote of Canon law itself. It would be interesting to see the Canons and Church teachings they base their conclusions on.
2. It states a Catholic is bound to marry within the Church (or have a dispensation). Then it speaks of 2 non-Catholics or a Catholic and Non-Catholic, being “recognized” as married if married in accordance with civil law. However, then it goes back to only speaking of *non-Catholics *being considered validly married. How does a “recongized marriage” differ from a valid marriage? What is the point of being “bound” to conditions for something to happen, if one can break the binding conditions without any consequence?

What does “recognition” mean? Certainly the Church or anyone else can see that something happens at the court house that the state thinks is important and has legal ramifications.

If recognition is taken to mean a valid natural marriage, then the commentary can not possibly be correct when taken at what is says? How is that? Well in many places around the world, two men or two men can be “married” in a ceremony that is valid according to civil law.

Pax

 

[dans0622]

…
Only a Catholic is bound to marry according to the form prescribed by the Catholic Church (i.e. before a Catholic priest or deacon and at least two additional witnesses) unless dispensed from this requirement by the bishop or his delegate. However, the Church recognizes the marriage of two non-Catholics, or a Catholic and a non-Catholic whether they marry in their own church/or non-Christian place of worship, another church or in a civil ceremony (justice of the peace) as long as the ceremony is valid according to civil law. …

The bold, colored statement is clearly a mistake and contradicts what was stated in the first sentence. I’ll try to contact them to see if this can be corrected.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

… The long and short of it is that it is possible valid marriages are not noted on the Baptismal certificate. It is rare but possible. That is why marriages must be presumed valid until proven otherwise. …

Hello ValPal,

Unfortunately, it is not rare that baptismal registers are not properly updated with marriage information. Because of this, those who investigate a marriage of a Catholic cannot depend on the baptism certificate. Usually, of course, a person remembers where he/she got married and who witnessed the marriage. So, if the person says “I got married at St. X church by Fr. Z” the tribunal will contact that church to ask for records and look at the civil marriage license to see if, indeed, Fr. Z is the one who signed it. The Tribunal will also ask for the baptismal certificate; if it is blank in the “Marriage” section but the civil record says Fr. Z witnessed the marriage, we will accept the civil record and not the ecclesiastical one.

As far as whether or not a merely civil marriage of a Catholic enjoys the Church’s presumption of validity, both canonical theory and practice say that it does not.

Dan

 

[1ke]

The bold, colored statement is clearly a mistake and contradicts what was stated in the first sentence. I’ll try to contact them to see if this can be corrected.

Dan

I emailed them this morning and they already replied that they would correct the error.

That was fast!!!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The bold, colored statement is clearly a mistake and contradicts what was stated in the first sentence. I’ll try to contact them to see if this can be corrected.

Dan

It is not incorrect and there is no contradiction. The error which gets repeated is confusing the marriage with a marriage sacrament. The term valid should be restricted to talk about the sacrament. The marriage is not bound by any “valid” term. Many marriages have no association with a marriage sacrament. The marriage is a property of the two married participants. A marriage sacrament is property of the Catholic Church, and can be requested by the participants but only granted by the Catholic Church. Dispensations can allow Catholics to stay in communion with the Church while being married outside the sacrament or in an alternate form of ceremony.

 

[EasterJoy]

Is an invalid marriage a marriage?

No. It is not.

It is the equivalent to not getting married, because…they didn’t get married.

Matters of culpability are seperate from the question of whether or not a marriage existed.

Pax

Matters of culpability have everything to do with whether fornication is committed. If a couple is in a putative marriage–that is, if a person honestly and with good reason believes himself or herself to be married–then it is not fornication when he or she has marital relations with the person he or she honestly believes to be his or her spouse. It just isn’t. This is why we don’t retroactively accuse a Catholic couple of 25 years of fornication when their attempt at marriage is given a decree of nullity! If a marriage is merely pretended in bad faith, that is a different situation for the person(s) guilty of the bad faith, but that is not the situation we’re talking about here.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Matters of culpability have everything to do with whether fornication is committed. If a couple is in a putative marriage–that is, if a person honestly and with good reason believes himself or herself to be married–then it is not fornication when he or she has marital relations with the person he or she honestly believes to be his or her spouse. It just isn’t. This is why we don’t retroactively accuse a Catholic couple of 25 years of fornication when their attempt at marriage is given a decree of nullity! If a marriage is merely pretended in bad faith, that is a different situation for the person(s) guilty of the bad faith, but that is not the situation we’re talking about here.

I respectfully disagree. As I have tried to explain, if you mean the sin of fornication, then I agree with what you said above. However, the act is something different. Two unmarried people having sex is by definition fornication. Just because we don’t know what we are doing is wrong, does not make it right. We may not be held accountable for the wrong, but it is still wrong.

Another example. I happened to be in a Protestant church because of my work the other day. Up in center of the sanctuary, where the altar and tabernacle would be in a Catholic Church, what do you think there was?

A drum set.

Objectively, the arrangment of the Church, and the insertion of drums in the place of Our Lord is blasphemous. Now I have no idea what the intent of any of the members of that Church is. It’s quite possible none of them are culpable for the sin of blasphemy, but the church is still blasphemous.

Likewise, someone who takes the Lord’s name in vain, as a matter of habit, without any ill intent, commits an act of blasphemy, even if they are not culpable.

And returning to the issue of so-called “same sex marriages”, does the act of sodomy cease to be sodomy, as long as both parties don’t think they are doing anything wrong? No it does not. It is what it is.

If calling sex between unmarried people fornication sounds ugly, well that is good, because it is ugly. Use of the appropriate word isn’t spoken out of hate or condmenation, but out of love. The solution isn’t to stay in ignorance. It’s to grow in our knowledge and love of the Lord and amend our lives.

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

It is not incorrect and there is no contradiction. The error which gets repeated is confusing the marriage with a marriage sacrament. The term valid should be restricted to talk about the sacrament. The marriage is not bound by any “valid” term. Many marriages have no association with a marriage sacrament. The marriage is a property of the two married participants. A marriage sacrament is property of the Catholic Church, and can be requested by the participants but only granted by the Catholic Church. Dispensations can allow Catholics to stay in communion with the Church while being married outside the sacrament or in an alternate form of ceremony.

This is incorrect. A natural marriage may be valid or invalid as well.

If a marriage is something with terms that can be set exclusively by the civic authorities and the participants, will two men or two women who “get married” in accordance with civil law and in agreement with each other, be married?

The Church’s answer is no they will not. What is yours?

 

[Dan_Daly]

Matters of culpability have everything to do with whether fornication is committed. If a couple is in a putative marriage–that is, if a person honestly and with good reason believes himself or herself to be married–then it is not fornication when he or she has marital relations with the person he or she honestly believes to be his or her spouse. It just isn’t. This is why we don’t retroactively accuse a Catholic couple of 25 years of fornication when their attempt at marriage is given a decree of nullity! If a marriage is merely pretended in bad faith, that is a different situation for the person(s) guilty of the bad faith, but that is not the situation we’re talking about here.

A few more examples:

If a couple uses contraception, but doesn’t think they are doing anything wrong, are they not contracepting?

If a person mastrubates, but doesn’t think they are doing anything wrong, are they not masturbating?

If a married couple agrees to a so-called “open marriage” where they can be openly unfaithful to each other, but doesn’t see anything wrong with it, are they not committing adultery?

In each case, the answer is clearly no. The person did what they did independent of whether or not they sincerely believed it wasn’t wrong.

A mortal sin requires:

-A grave matter
-Knowledge
-Consent

Even if there is no knowledge and consent, there can still be grave matter. Lack of knowledge and consent don’t change the grave matter of an action.

Pax

 

[EasterJoy]

A few more examples:

If a couple uses contraception, but doesn’t think they are doing anything wrong, are they not contracepting?

If a person mastrubates, but doesn’t think they are doing anything wrong, are they not masturbating?

If a married couple agrees to a so-called “open marriage” where they can be openly unfaithful to each other, but doesn’t see anything wrong with it, are they not committing adultery?

In each case, the answer is clearly no. The person did what they did independent of whether or not they sincerely believed it wasn’t wrong.

A mortal sin requires:

-A grave matter
-Knowledge
-Consent

Even if there is no knowledge and consent, there can still be grave matter. Lack of knowledge and consent don’t change the grave matter of an action.

Pax

Your examples are not the equivalent of a putative marriage. A marriage entered into in bad faith, yes, a couple co-habitating by defiantly deciding it is the equivalent of marriage, yes, but not a putative marriage in which consent with the intention to marry was given.

CCC 2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

**Can. 1107 **Even if a marriage was entered into invalidly by reason of an impediment or a defect of form, the consent given is presumed to persist until its revocation is established.

 

[Dan_Daly]

You just proved my point.

Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman

That defines fornication as an act. It is the carnal union between an unmarried man and an umarried woman. It says nothing about intent. If two people are not validly married, they are not married.

One may presume they are married when there is doubt about the issue, but that does not make them married, anymore than presuming a man charged with a crime is innocent makes him in fact innocent. As othters have pointed out, if a Catholic gets “married” outside the CHurch without the Bishops dispensation, then there is no doubt the marriage is invalid, because it quite clearly fails to meet the requirements for validity.

The simple question is: Are an invalidly married couple in fact married? The answer is no, which is why they may marry another person while the invalid spouse is still living. To answer otherwise rejects the teaching of the indisoluablity of marriage.

So if an invalid marriage is no marriage, then the carnal union between two people in an invalid marriage is fornication by the Catechism section you cited.

Pax

 

[adrift]

Not exactly, Canon law applies only to baptized Catholics. Canon law does address several of these issues directly. In this case the catholic has several canons contributing to reconciliation and being free to marry. The non-catholic has restrictions on entering into communion with the Catholic Church ".

Lol that was exactly the point I was making but you expressed better. This applies to Catholics who have observed canon law not to Catholics who have attempted a marriage outside of Church Canon Laws. So the canon that presumes a marriage valid is not applicable. As

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.

states only marriage contracted in the Church are considered valid unless proven otherwise.

This is considered a marriage until proven otherwise the Church is very clear on that subject. Sin only exists when one or both parties knowingly falsely claim a marriage and then the sin is restricted to the party or parties of knowledge. The other party is free of sin because the marriage is puntative. Several Canon laws deal with varies conditions arising from these issues. For example look at Laws 1143, & 1149 use of the term “marriage” what marriage do they write of? Law 1148 uses the term “wife”, how could there be a wife? The whole Article 2 section of Chapter 10 deals with these “marriages” I ask you please look at Radical Sanations in which the Church official recognizes the original exchange of vows of this “marriage” and even records the date of marriage retroactive.

see above canon.

 

[adrift]

Divorce is a mortal sin–at least if that marraige is seen as valid by the Catholic Church.

No divorce is not a mortal sin. An attempted second marriage without being free to marry is.

 

[adrift]

According to posts by Father David on this forum, this is false. Marriage always receives the favor of law, and is presumed valid until proven otherwise. In this case the marriage can be easily and quickly be proven invalid, but that comes after the presumption of validity. An investigation must be performed, which would include the civil marriage and divorce papers, as well as a current copy of the Baptismal certificate.

I doubt if Father meant marriages outside the Church. Please look at posted canon law which states what a valid marriage is.

 

[adrift]

That’s not right. An invalid attempt at marriage is not the moral equivalent to not getting married at all. While the friend did commit an offense against marriage by failing to observe canon law, if she entered into the marriage in good faith her marital relations were not fornication, any more than children born of the marriage would be illegitimate.

**Canon 1061.3 **An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.

**Canon 1137 **Children who are conceived or born of a valid or of a putative marriage are legitimate.

These canons do not apply to those who marry outside the Church. Since by the very nature of not marrying in the Church would not be celebrated in “good faith”