RCIA and Marriage

[pioneercynthia]

When a person joins the Church (through RCIA) do they have to have their marriage validated? What if their spouse isn’t Catholic, and doesn’t want to join the Church? If they get a divorce, do they have to get an annulment, if they weren’t married in the Church?

 

[Thomas63116]

Hi Cynthia,

Welcome to the forums. The basic answer is that the Catholic Church requires Catholics to be married according to the church’s form (or with a proper dispensation) in order for their marriage to be recognized as valid. It makes no such requirement of non-Catholics. Thus, two non-Catholics who marry each other are considered by the church to be validly married, and if both are married, the Church considers their marriage sacramental. If one of them later becomes Catholic, the marriage remains valid, and nothing needs to be done.

Of course if there is some other impediment to the marriage (such as a prior marriage) then things get more complicated.

 

[rpp]

When a person joins the Church (through RCIA) do they have to have their marriage validated? What if their spouse isn’t Catholic, and doesn’t want to join the Church? If they get a divorce, do they have to get an annulment, if they weren’t married in the Church?

Welcome to CAF!!!

When I converted to the Catholic Church in 2003, my then wife (my second wife) would have nothing to do with it; she hated Christians and Christianity.

I had been married previously so I needed to get that marriage addressed and I received an annulment. Next, I needed to get my current marriage convalidated in the Church.

My understanding of how convalidations are done is fairly limited. However, I believe that normally the couple attends a Mass, any Mass, and after the homily the Priest calls them forward and they take the wedding vows. Then Mass then proceeds normally. I saw this happen only once after a couple had just been confirmed.

In my case, my wife absolutely refused to take part. I was told I could not receive communion until my current marriage had been dealt with. I knew that my wife was going to divorce me soon as she was demanding that I cease going to Church. In this case, I applied for what is called a “radical sanation” which effectively says that since we had previously made civil vows (well, not quite civil, we were married by a Wiccan witch and high priestess, though we were both atheists at the time.) and I now desired a sacramental marriage that our marriage was sacramentally valid.

A few months later, my then wife fled the country and divorced me from overseas. (I receved a declaration of nullity last year so I am free to marry.)

So yes, you do need to have marriages convalidated or made sacramental in some manner in order to receive Holy Communion. The basis for this is that the Church recognizes that there are two types of marriages, civil and sacramental. In order for married persons to receive Holy Communion, their marriage must be sacramental. (A marriage can be presumed to be valid even if it is not sacramental, something that confuses many people.)

At least, that is my understanding. If I am wrong in some detail, I invite those who are better informed to correct me.

 

[Thomas63116]

So yes, you do need to have marriages convalidated or made sacramental in some manner in order to receive Holy Communion. The basis for this is that the Church recognizes that there are two types of marriages, civil and sacramental. In order for married persons to receive Holy Communion, their marriage must be sacramental. (A marriage can be presumed to be valid even if it is not sacramental, something that confuses many people.)

At least, that is my understanding. If I am wrong in some detail, I invite those who are better informed to correct me.

In the situation you describe, there was a marriage prior to the one you were in at the time of your conversion to the Catholic faith. That marriage created an impediment to the second marriage, which is the reason that the second marriage would not have been recognized as valid by the Church at the time of your conversion. This created the need for the convalidation/radical sanation, which could only take place after the first marriage had been investigated and a declaration of nulity issued.

If niether party had been married before, and there are no other impediments, and one converts, I believe the Church recognizes that marriage as valid, and no convalidation or anything else is needed.

 

[msugeotech]

Convalidation or radical sanations do not apply when neither party is Catholic. Once a previous marriage is declared invalid, the presumption of validity automatically falls to the next marriage.

 

[rpp]

In the situation you describe, there was a marriage prior to the one you were in at the time of your conversion to the Catholic faith. That marriage created an impediment to the second marriage, which is the reason that the second marriage would not have been recognized as valid by the Church at the time of your conversion. This created the need for the convalidation/radical sanation, which could only take place after the first marriage had been investigated and a declaration of nulity issued.

If niether party had been married before, and there are no other impediments, and one converts, I believe the Church recognizes that marriage as valid, and no convalidation or anything else is needed.

That is not how it was explained to me. A civil marriage, even between two Catholics who are free to marry, is not considered sacramental and that excludes the couple from Holy Communion until their marriage is convalidated in the Church. This is true for all people. You are confusing “valid” marriage with “sacramental”.

 

[1ke]

When a person joins the Church (through RCIA) do they have to have their marriage validated?

That depends upon their specific circumstances such as any previous marriages on their part or the part of their current spouse. It also depends on whether or not the spouse is a Catholic (or Orthodox) and whether they received proper permissions to marry a non-Catholic or followed their own Church’s requirements for form.

Two non-Catholics, with no previous marriages, who were married civilly and have no other impediments do not need to have their marriage convalidated-- they are in a valid marriage.

What if their spouse isn’t Catholic, and doesn’t want to join the Church?

There is no requirement for one spouse to convert if the other is converting.

If there are prior marriages, the other spouse may have to be involved in a petition for a decree of nullity but they do not have to become Catholic.

If they get a divorce, do they have to get an annulment, if they weren’t married in the Church?

Yes. They would have to go through the tribunal process to have their marriage examined for nullity because their marriage is a valid marriage.

The requirement to be married in the Catholic form is only binding on Catholics. If you weren’t Catholic when you married and you didn’t marry a Catholic then you do not have that requirement of form.

 

[nomie]

Hi there!
While I don’t know the answer, it would probably be best just to ask your priest. He’ll be able to guide you. I don’t know if all RCIA programs do this but when I joined RCIA, the director asked me if I had any prior marriages & where I married my husband to make sure there wouldn’t be any issues down the road (my situation was pretty simple since I married a Catholic in the Church). Good luck!

 

[rpp]

The requirement to be married in the Catholic form is only binding on Catholics. If you weren’t Catholic when you married and you didn’t marry a Catholic then you do not have that requirement of form.

While I normally find your information quite reliable, this is not consistent with what I had to go through. Can you provide some links? I will look for some as well.

 

[Thomas63116]

That is not how it was explained to me. A civil marriage, even between two Catholics who are free to marry, is not considered sacramental and that excludes the couple from Holy Communion until their marriage is convalidated in the Church. This is true for all people. You are confusing “valid” marriage with “sacramental”.

You are correct that a civil marriage between two Catholics (or between a Catholic and a non-Catholic) would not be recognized as valid by the Catholic Church, because the Catholic party (or parties)are bound by Canon Law. Therefore, the marriage must be recognized by the Church (through radical sanation or convalidation) before the couple could receive communion.

However, two non-Catholics would not be bound by the provisions of Canon Law, and the Catholic Church would recognize their marriage as valid, even if it was only a civil ceremony.

My understanding of the distinction between a valid marriage and a sacramental marriage has to do with whether both parties are baptized. An unbaptized person cannot receive any other sacrament, and one party to the marriage cannot receive the sacrament of marriage without the other party to the marriage also receiving it (since they confer the sacrament on each other with the priest or deacon as a witness). Therefore, the Church recognizes the marriage of a baptized person and a non-baptized person as a valid marriage, but not sacramental, while the marriage of two baptized persons (if valid) is always considered savcramental.

 

[1ke]

That is not how it was explained to me. A civil marriage, even between two Catholics who are free to marry, is not considered sacramental and that excludes the couple from Holy Communion until their marriage is convalidated in the Church. This is true for all people. You are confusing “valid” marriage with “sacramental”.

rpp, you are confusing to different things: Catholics and everybody else.

A marriage when one or both parties are Catholic requires that it be in the *Catholic form *(unless the Catholic receives a *dispensation *from form) in order to be valid.

If they follow form (or get proper dispensation) and both are baptized, it’s a sacrament. If one is baptized it’s a natural marriage. If they fail to follow form the marriage is invalid.

A **civil **marriage between two **non-Catholics **is valid. If both are baptized it is sacramental. If neither or one is baptized it’s a natural marriage.

There is no requirement of form for non-Catholics.

The one exception is that the Orthodox Churches have a required form under their own Church law for validity-- Orthodox must be married by an Orthodox priest. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox requirement of form for their own members.

Other Christian and non-Christian groups have no such requirements of form in their own faith traditions. Therefore, they can contract marriage validly when they do so in a civil setting or with their own faith tradition’s clergy.

 

[Thomas63116]

Once a previous marriage is declared invalid, the presumption of validity automatically falls to the next marriage.

Can anyone else confirm whether this is correct? If the presumption of validity automatically falls to the next marriage, then in the example rpp gave why would he have been advised that he needed to have his second marriage convalidated (or radically sanated)? (I am not trying to second guess what he was told to do, merely to better understand the church’s marriage laws as illustarted by this example).

 

[rpp]

Okay, I have done a little hunting and it appears that I am, indeed, incorrect. Convalidation is required when there has been some fault, such as a prior marriage that has been annulled after the subsequent marriage or if it is a marriage where one of the persons was not baptized. In my case, both of these were true, I remarried without an annulment and my second wife had never been baptized.



Here are a couple articles I found proving me incorrect.
americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0604.asp
idotaketwo.com/marriage-convalidation.html

Thank you for the well intended and polite correction.

 

[1ke]

While I normally find your information quite reliable, this is not consistent with what I had to go through. Can you provide some links? I will look for some as well.

Canon 11 covers who is bound by ecclesiastical law:

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

The canons on the form of marriage are ecclesiastical laws. Therefore, they bind only Catholics, see particularly this canon which states that form applies when at least one party is Catholic:

Can. 1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

 

[SMHW]

While I normally find your information quite reliable, this is not consistent with what I had to go through. Can you provide some links? I will look for some as well.

But it sounds like you were in an invalid marriage when you wished to join the Church. You were still presumed to be married to the first wife. So you were expected to marry the “second” wife for the first time.

I believe what msugeotech was saying is that if your first wife died (or if for some reason you obtained a Catholic ruling of nullity before you ever even considered joining the Catholic Church), then the Catholic Church would consider your second marriage to become automatically valid. (I did not know this but I’m willing to believe it.)

I think that once you formally declare your intention to enter the Catholic Church (even if you have not yet made a profession of Faith,) you become bound the Catholic form. Did you go through the Rite of Welcoming prior to obtaining a ruling of nullity for the first marriage?

 

[rpp]

But it sounds like you were in an invalid marriage when you wished to join the Church. You were still presumed to be married to the first wife. So you were expected to marry the “second” wife for the first time.

I believe what msugeotech was saying is that if your first wife died (or if for some reason you obtained a Catholic ruling of nullity before you ever even considered joining the Catholic Church), then the Catholic Church would consider your second marriage to become automatically valid. (I did not know this but I’m willing to believe it.)

I think that once you formally declare your intention to enter the Catholic Church (even if you have not yet made a profession of Faith,) you become bound the Catholic form. Did you go through the Rite of Welcoming prior to obtaining a ruling of nullity for the first marriage?

Yes, yes. Please see my previous post. I realize I was incorrect. Thank you for keeping me on my toes.

I cannot remember if I went through the Rite of Welcoming before or after I received the initial declaration of nullity. I got the nullity declaration right around that time time and just before my Confirmation. I do know that I had not received my radical sanation until several months after my Confirmation.

 

[puzzleannie]

When a person joins the Church (through RCIA) do they have to have their marriage validated? What if their spouse isn’t Catholic, and doesn’t want to join the Church? If they get a divorce, do they have to get an annulment, if they weren’t married in the Church?

welcome to the forums and if you are in RCIA, or thinking about it, Welcome Home (no matter how long it takes to actually ge through the door)

simply no way to answer your question as there are so many variables. comparing your own situation to another couple is futile (as the conflicting stories here attest). The only way to get an answer is to explain your own situation to the priest or his delegate who interviews you when you begin the process, and be honest about all the facts that pertain to your marriage. These are only a few of the variables, there are more: baptismal status of both parties (never baptized, baptized Catholic, baptized in another denomination); previous marital/divorce history; religious affliation of each now.

In general the Catholic Church considers marriages between two non-Catholics as valid (providing they were free to marry at the time) as valid until proven otherwise.

In general, no, when you become Catholic your spouse is not required to convert.

annulment only is a factor if one party had been married and divorced prior to a current marriage, in which case, the facts would have to be formally investigated and a judgement made by the canon law tribunal of the diocese (even if neither party was Catholic) to determine if the first marriage was valid, and if the parties were free to enter into the second marriage.

It gets very complicated so pointless to discuss here. Each marriage is unique see your priest, and try to comply with paperwork or whatever else he asks for early in the process so things go smoothly for you.

 

[msugeotech]

I was trying to relate my experience in a short choppy answer, so I apologize for the confusion I may have caused. I’ll detail it a little better so I am more clear.

My first marriage took place in the Episcopal church. I was Episcopal, wife was Baptist. Divorced 6 months later due to adultery (on her part). This was in 1996.

Second marriage took place in Baptist church. Wife was Baptist, I was still Episcopal (converted to Baptist shortly after we were married). This was in 1999.

We began RCIA in 2006. Told we would need a Decree of Nullity before we could be admitted to the sacraments. I applied in February 2007 and received affirmative decision in January 2008, ratified in Second Instance in February 2008 - Decree of Nullity issued by our Bishop.

My priest told me we would have to have our marriage convalidated. After talking with a couple of people on here, including 1ke and a Canon Lawyer, along with our Judicial Vicar, it was determined that my priest was incorrect. We went round and round with him until finally he agreed after talking with some of his “buddies” (for a lack of better term).

What we learned was what I stated earlier. A Decree of Nullity states that the marriage in question was indeed invalid, and therefore null and void and no longer binding on either party. This means that the impediment that existed at the time of my 2nd marriage was no longer in effect, and I was free to marry, so the presumption of validity automatically fell to my 2nd (and current) marriage, since we were not bound by Canon Law at the time of our marriage. And since we are both baptized, our marriage is sacramental and valid.

Hope that helped, and if you have more questions, I’ll try to answer as best as I can.

 

[Thomas63116]

I was trying to relate my experience in a short choppy answer, so I apologize for the confusion I may have caused. I’ll detail it a little better so I am more clear.

My first marriage took place in the Episcopal church. I was Episcopal, wife was Baptist. Divorced 6 months later due to adultery (on her part). This was in 1996.

Second marriage took place in Baptist church. Wife was Baptist, I was still Episcopal (converted to Baptist shortly after we were married). This was in 1999.

We began RCIA in 2006. Told we would need a Decree of Nullity before we could be admitted to the sacraments. I applied in February 2007 and received affirmative decision in January 2008, ratified in Second Instance in February 2008 - Decree of Nullity issued by our Bishop.

My priest told me we would have to have our marriage convalidated. After talking with a couple of people on here, including 1ke and a Canon Lawyer, along with our Judicial Vicar, it was determined that my priest was incorrect. We went round and round with him until finally he agreed after talking with some of his “buddies” (for a lack of better term).

What we learned was what I stated earlier. A Decree of Nullity states that the marriage in question was indeed invalid, and therefore null and void and no longer binding on either party. This means that the impediment that existed at the time of my 2nd marriage was no longer in effect, and I was free to marry, so the presumption of validity automatically fell to my 2nd (and current) marriage, since we were not bound by Canon Law at the time of our marriage. And since we are both baptized, our marriage is sacramental and valid.

Hope that helped, and if you have more questions, I’ll try to answer as best as I can.

Thank you for providing additional information. Agian, I am not trying to pry into the details of people’s personal lives, but I am trying to better understand the Church’s marriage laws and the principles behind them as illustrated by these examples.

So, if I understand correctly, the difference between your situation and RPP’s is that your second wife was baptized, while RPP’s second wife was not. Therefore, RPP’s second marriage required convalidation/radical sanation after he received a decree of nulity for the first, while yours did not. Is that correct?

 

[msugeotech]

Actually, I’m not sure why the marriage had to be validated by radical sanation. I would think his case would be the same as mine - the presumption of validity falling to the second marriage after his first was declared invalid. Since neither were baptized at the time of the second marriage, they would have been in a valid, natural marriage. I’m still trying to figure it out.

So, if I understand correctly, the difference between your situation and RPP’s is that your second wife was baptized, while RPP’s second wife was not. Therefore, RPP’s second marriage required convalidation/radical sanation after he received a decree of nulity for the first, while yours did not. Is that correct?