Quick question about annulment/divorce

[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.

It is hard to judge what Father might have said. Please provide a link. What you are missing is these are not marriages when attempted outside the Church. Yes marriages are presumed valid. Valid is only if they 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 otherwise they are not marriages.

 

[EvelynEVF]

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”

Oh, I know of several Catholics who married outside the Church in good faith. They were just utterly clueless.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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”

Good faith refers to the participants not the building, remember the priest is officially a witness. The canon apply to the Catholic even outside the church. The Canon you are referring to separates the marriage of a catholic to a baptized person from a presumed sacrament. Sacramental no, marriage yes. When to baptized non-catholic wed outside the Church their marriage is considered sacramental, which does not apply here because one was catholic

It is hard to judge what Father might have said. Please provide a link. What you are missing is these are not marriages when attempted outside the Church. Yes marriages are presumed valid. Valid is only if they 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 otherwise they are not marriages.

They are marriage, thay are not presumed sacraments

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

see above canon.

vaild refers to the sacrament which is controlled by the Church

I will ask you again to review

" 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. "

hope that helps

 

[adrift]

Good faith refers to the participants not the building, remember the priest is officially a witness.

What is your point here?

The canon apply to the Catholic even outside the church. The Canon you are referring to separates the marriage of a catholic to a baptized person from a presumed sacrament. Sacramental no, marriage yes. When to baptized non-catholic wed outside the Church their marriage is considered sacramental, which does not apply here because one was catholic

You are confusing two issues

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.

They are marriage, thay are not presumed sacraments vaild refers to the sacrament which is controlled by the Church

The Church disagrees

1. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

I will ask you again to review

" 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. "

hope that helps]

The Canons you quote deal NOT with a Catholic that marries outside the Church.
I do not dispute that Catholics married in the Church to baptized non Catholics are sacramentally married nor if unbaptized they are naturally married. Nor do I dispute the validity of those outside the Church being married.
What I am saying is no marriage exist when a Catholic is not married by the Church as the above Canons state. These are two different issues. Please stop confusing them.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In addition to the earlier canons which show the Church recognizing marriages which occur outside the Church there is the section on Radical Sanation which has been ducked all through the thread. Now to focus on your request of canons which are more direct to Catholics marrying outside the Church, these are impediments so you have canons 1156, 1157, 1159, 1160*, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1165 all calling these marriages, marriages. Additionally to the whole article 2 on radical sanations canon 1160 specifically deals with this condition calling the current marriage a marriage, 1160 calls the current marriage a marriage because it is a marriage. It clearly blocks the Bishop (through the Priest) from calling the current marriage sacramental whether the impediment is via one or two returning Catholics. It clearly prevents the once to confession and good to go scenario. Also canon 1107 clearly states a marriage entered into by defect in form is presumed to exist, that would make no sense if interpreted according to the current proposed interpretation. These canons are not written by confused people, they do not contain typos. They deal specifically with methods to have these marriages elevated to sacramental marriages when both parties are baptized, or dispensing form, or dispensing of the sacrament of marriage requirement when one party is non-baptized.

btw please review post #61?

 

[adrift]

In addition to the earlier canons which show the Church recognizing marriages which occur outside the Church there is the section on Radical Sanation which has been ducked all through the thread. Now to focus on your request of canons which are more direct to Catholics marrying outside the Church, these are impediments so you have canons 1156, 1157, 1159, 1160*, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1165 all calling these marriages, marriages. Additionally to the whole article 2 on radical sanations canon 1160 specifically deals with this condition calling the current marriage a marriage, 1160 calls the current marriage a marriage because it is a marriage. It clearly blocks the Bishop (through the Priest) from calling the current marriage sacramental whether the impediment is via one or two returning Catholics. It clearly prevents the once to confession and good to go scenario. Also canon 1107 clearly states a marriage entered into by defect in form is presumed to exist, that would make no sense if interpreted according to the current proposed interpretation. These canons are not written by confused people, they do not contain typos. They deal specifically with methods to have these marriages elevated to sacramental marriages when both parties are baptized, or dispensing form, or dispensing of the sacrament of marriage requirement when one party is non-baptized.

btw please review post #61?

I found this explanation to be better than anything I could write emphasis mine.

In layman’s terms, what does this mean and what does it mean to a couple who has married
outside of the Catholic Church and now wishes to have the marriage “blessed” by the Church?
A couple who has married outside of the Church has entered into an invalid marriage. This
couple now needs to present themselves, as a couple, to the parish priest, and needs to
demonstrate that they entered into the non-canonical marriage without malice or deception. The
couple needs to show that they truly are penitent of their misunderstanding and misdeed and
that they desire the bond that “by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive” and through which
they are “strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and dignity of their state by a
special sacrament” (Canon 1134). The priest, believing the intention of the couple, now has the
right and ability to dispense the “canonical form” and validate the marriage, bringing it into
proper validity and liceity with the Roman Catholic Church

This is supported by the Canons I quoted before see my previous posts.

 

[dans0622]

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.

Hello,

There was a mistake and a contradiction. The website has been changed and the passage in question now reads: “However, the Church recognizes the marriage of two non-Catholics, or a Catholic who has received a dispensation from form 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.”

Dan

 

[dans0622]

In addition to the earlier canons which show the Church recognizing marriages which occur outside the Church there is the section on Radical Sanation which has been ducked all through the thread. Now to focus on your request of canons which are more direct to Catholics marrying outside the Church, these are impediments so you have canons 1156, 1157, 1159, 1160*, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1165 all calling these marriages, marriages. Additionally to the whole article 2 on radical sanations canon 1160 specifically deals with this condition calling the current marriage a marriage, 1160 calls the current marriage a marriage because it is a marriage. It clearly blocks the Bishop (through the Priest) from calling the current marriage sacramental whether the impediment is via one or two returning Catholics. It clearly prevents the once to confession and good to go scenario. Also canon 1107 clearly states a marriage entered into by defect in form is presumed to exist, that would make no sense if interpreted according to the current proposed interpretation. These canons are not written by confused people, they do not contain typos. They deal specifically with methods to have these marriages elevated to sacramental marriages when both parties are baptized, or dispensing form, or dispensing of the sacrament of marriage requirement when one party is non-baptized.

btw please review post #61?

Hello,

If the marriage was valid, what’s the point of convalidation, either a simple one or a sanation? Besides, these canons always introduce the subject by saying “A marriage *invalid *because of…” There is never any distinction made between sacramental or non-sacramental marriages.

Also, c. 1107 does not say what you said it says. It refers to the consent of the Parties, not the presumed validity of the marriage. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Z.HTM

As for the rest of your comments here and elsewhere in this thread, I will simply say that you have a unique perspective on these issues.

Dan

 

[ajaffres]

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.

Just to give you an example. My husband and I, first got married outside of the RC Church. At the time I had no idea about the whole dispensation rule. When I did find out and asked the priest, he did say that our marriage was not valid as a sacrament, but the children were considered legitimate in the eyes of the Church.

As for communion, I asked him if after confession if I could receive communion. He never gave me a straight answer. He asked me how I felt. So I had communion once right after confession, but then did not go again until we had our marriage validated in the RCC. He let it be my choice.

Now if my husband and I would have had a divorce before the validation, I would have been technically FREE to marry again in the RC Church, but not my husband since our marriage in his protestant Church is considered valid for him but not for me.

It is a non-issue now since we had a RC Marriage to make it sacramental. I just hope our marriage is now valid. We had 3 kids before the validation and my husband has never been open to new life since the birth of the 3rd child.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I found this explanation to be better than anything I could write emphasis mine.

This is supported by the Canons I quoted before see my previous posts.

The post is not contridictory. Look at the reference you post.

*"In layman’s terms, what does this mean and what does it mean to a couple who has married *outside of the Catholic Church and now wishes to have the marriage “blessed” by the Church? A couple who has married outside of the Church has entered into an invalid marriage. This couple now needs to present themselves, as a couple, to the parish priest, and needs to demonstrate that they entered into the non-canonical marriage without malice or deception. The couple needs to show that they truly are penitent of their misunderstanding and misdeed and that they desire the bond that “by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive” and through which they are “strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and dignity of their state by a special sacrament” (Canon 1134). The priest, believing the intention of the couple, now has the right and ability to dispense the “canonical form” and validate the marriage, bringing it into proper validity and liceity with the Roman Catholic Church

Over and over the reference acknowledges the marriage. The whole point is how to bring the “marriage” up to a sacramental marriage and reconcile the people with the Church.

hope that helps

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hello,

There was a mistake and a contradiction. The website has been changed and the passage in question now reads: “However, the Church recognizes the marriage of two non-Catholics, or a Catholic who has received a dispensation from form 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.”

Dan

There was not a mistake, and it was not corrected. Last week the website address Catholics who married outside the Church without dispensation, this week the website does not address the issue. They removed the condition from the post. So now it does not address the issue.

Hello,

If the marriage was valid, what’s the point of convalidation, either a simple one or a sanation? Besides, these canons always introduce the subject by saying “A marriage *invalid *because of…” There is never any distinction made between sacramental or non-sacramental marriages.

Also, c. 1107 does not say what you said it says. It refers to the consent of the Parties, not the presumed validity of the marriage. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Z.HTM

As for the rest of your comments here and elsewhere in this thread, I will simply say that you have a unique perspective on these issues.

Dan

Dan0622

There may be a misunderstanding here because this mess started with the statements concerning no marriage ever existed and the actions were sin. Adultery according to the poster. That talk is false. Now the question is are you defending that point?

 

[adrift]

There was not a mistake, and it was not corrected. Last week the website address Catholics who married outside the Church without dispensation, this week the website does not address the issue. They removed the condition from the post. So now it does not address the issue.

Dan0622

There may be a misunderstanding here because this mess started with the statements concerning no marriage ever existed and the actions were sin. Adultery according to the poster. That talk is false. Now the question is are you defending that point?

You seem to be saying that there is no sin involved. You also don’t seem to acknowledge that when marriage is mentioned it is mentioned with being invalid. What does invalid mean to you?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You seem to be saying that there is no sin involved. You also don’t seem to acknowledge that when marriage is mentioned it is mentioned with being invalid. What does invalid mean to you?

The Church is clear on what “valid/invalid” means which pertains to sacraments not marriages. The colloquial use of “invalid” is at the heart of this problem however the meaning from that use is a million miles away from being semantic.

 

[EasterJoy]

Oh, I know of several Catholics who married outside the Church in good faith. They were just utterly clueless.

…Or they had left the faith and were marrying according to the understanding of the sect to which they had attached themselves. Their intention was to marry and to have sexual relations within marriage. It is not a valid marriage, but canon law notes that when Catholics marry with a defect in form it is not the same as living together without having exchanged consent at all.

 

[EasterJoy]

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

Divorce is a mortal sin when it is chosen for reasons that are not sufficiently serious. Divorce is permitted, however, when the reasons are sufficiently serious. There is no sin when one is forced into an unnecessary divorce that one did not want, resulting from marital destruction for which one is not responsible (boldface mine):

CCC on
***Divorce **

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175

Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

**If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. **

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 **It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.*179

When it is known that the marriage is null, divorce is allowed, and to my knowledge (in the US, at least) a civil divorce must precede an investigation by a tribunal.

 

[EasterJoy]

Further questions about divorce and annulment might be pointed to the liturgy and sacraments forum. There are more canon lawyers hanging out there!

 

[joanofarc2008]

Some of those Canon lawyers already have answered on this thread and still been ignored.

 

[EasterJoy]

Some of those Canon lawyers already have answered on this thread and still been ignored.

Except maybe by the OP, who is really the one who counts. If there are follow-up questions, the best answers would come from that other forum, IMHO.

 

[adrift]

The Church is clear on what “valid/invalid” means which pertains to sacraments not marriages. The colloquial use of “invalid” is at the heart of this problem however the meaning from that use is a million miles away from being semantic.

You didn’t answer the question.

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract **cannot exist **between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Your claim that the Church is clear should be able to be backed up with citations from Church documtnets.

 

[adrift]

Some of those Canon lawyers already have answered on this thread and still been ignored.

Which answers are from Canon Lawyers.