Rejected Absolution

[PetraG]

Right, but all natural marriages outside of the sacramental rite of Marriage should be considered sacramental until a Tribunal determines otherwise, no?

There isn’t a lot of investigation to do. Unless both parties are baptized, it is not sacramental. If it is a valid marriage between two Christians, however, it is sacramental. In that case, validity has to be confirmed.

 

[AugustTherese]

There isn’t a lot of investigation to do. Unless both parties are baptized, it is not sacramental. If it is a valid marriage between two Christians, however, it is sacramental. In that case, validity has to be confirmed.

I’m horrible at Canon Law. So, at least one of the parties has to be baptized in order for a marriage to be sacramental?

 

[PetraG]

I’m horrible at Canon Law. So, at least one of the parties has to be baptized in order for a marriage to be sacramental?

No, both parties must be baptized.
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…
Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage…

 

[MrsAngelala]

I know exactly what you’re talking about; in fact, trying to write a response triggered a lot of anxiety. I found myself in a similar situation last year, for the same reason: married by a Christian minister while I was not a practicing Catholic. I didn’t find out until thirteen years later that I was supposed to get permission to marry a Protestant.

When you’re talking about a questionable marriage, there are two different concepts at play: invalid and illicit. Invalid means the marriage wasn’t effective, i.e. that you are not actually married. Illicit means that it is illegal, i.e. that you didn’t dot an i or cross a t somewhere, but you are still technically married (though not eligible to receive Communion). “Invalid” is used incorrectly to refer to both types of irregularity on this forum. It can be very confusing.

Since you’re Catholic, if your husband has ever been baptized in the Trinitarian formula, your marriage is likely valid, but illicit. If he is not baptized, your marriage is likely invalid. You’ll want to talk to someone personally to get the definite answers for your situation. Don’t let the internet try to parse it out for you. If you can’t get coherent answers from your priest, go directly to the marriage tribunal for your Diocese.

Since neither of you were ever married before, the paperwork will be done in person with a priest and take a total of 15-20 minutes, tops. You will both need copies of your baptismal certificates, so contact the churches where you were baptized now and get that process started while you’re waiting to speak with the priest.

Don’t wait anymore. Call and visit daily or even multiple times a day until you have an appointment.

God will not abandon you here. Stick close to him. Jesus didn’t draw you back to confession just to push you away. He will not abandon you.

I’ve prayed for you. God bless you, Sister.

 

[TheOldColonel]

You need a private meeting with a priest or pastoral minister outside of the confessional. That way, you’ll have sufficient time to talk. If you get no response, indeed, call another parish until you get some assistance. If you need annulment help, that should be provided first. If not, you might start marriage preparation immediately and return to the sacraments just before the time of the wedding, starting with confession.

 

[SFJ]

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut/feedback. I learned quite a bit. I went back to the rectory again today and reminded the secretary that I really needed to meet with Father. She’s working on it for me. It seems this past weekend was our parish’s celebration of First Holy Communion. (I hadn’t realized.) I’m patiently waiting. I’d like to add a few points as well…

1. We are both baptized Roman Catholic
2. My husband was raised by practicing Catholics (Grandparents) but has chosen not to believe what he was taught.
3. We married at a young age (22) and I was unaware that I needed to obtain a dispensation from the church at the time.
4. I’m simply trying to have our marriage acknowledged by the church so that I may continue to practice my faith while in God’s good graces.

Again, I thank you all! I’m waiting impatiently.

 

[TheOldColonel]

Since Roman Catholics, according to canon law, may not marry outside the Roman Rite without dispensation from canonical form, all attempts at marriage outside the Church for a Roman Catholic are both always illicit and invalid. In other words, they are neither Sacramental (“effective” as you put it) or licit (lawful). A Catholic who attempts to marry even a validly baptized Christian outside of the Catholic Church without required permission/dispensations achieves neither a licit nor sacramental bond. Indeed, rather canonical penalty is incurred.

 

[guanophore]

Exactly. How do know this was not the case?

The marriage occurred outside the CC.

This is the only marriage for both of us. We were married by a Christian minister outside of the Catholic Church. We have been together since the age of 16 and married at 22.

This one may not be valid, however, because the Catholic is bound to observe the laws of the Church concerning marriage, such as to gain permission to marry someone when both are not Catholic.

There is a difference between “invalid” and “illicit”. Baptized Catholics are bound by canon law, so they are required to be married according to that law. But those who are married outside that law (illicit) are still considered validly married.

your marriage can be convalidated in a little marriage ceremony before a priest or deacon.

This is the key. “Convalidation” means to “validate with”. That confirms that the marriage is considered valid. It is done to bring an “illicit” (marriage that was entered by a Catholic outside of canon law) into compliance.

He verified that my spouse and I had never been civilly married to anyone else and convalidated our marriage.

This is done to ascertain that a previous valid marriage did not exist, which would “invalidate” the marriage.

civil marriages

This is considered valid until determined otherwise.

If you are Catholic and married outside the Church (while Catholic) without dispensation to do so, your marriage is invalid.

No, it is considered illicit, but not necessarily invalid. Two people may enter into marriage freely (if they have no impediments) even if they did not have a dispensation. In this case, if neither person has been previously married, it is considered valid. Invalidity is determined when one or both parties did not meet the criteria for freely entering into the marriage relationship.

You can’t marry a non-Catholic and spring your obligations on them later and yet call it a binding marriage. That would be unjust.

It is unjust, but this does not invalidate the marriage.

Right, but all natural marriages outside of the sacramental rite of Marriage should be considered sacramental until a Tribunal determines otherwise, no?

I don’t think they are considered “sacramental” until they are married sacramentally. But I do think they are considered valid until/unless a tribunal determines otherwise.

 

[guanophore]

As far as the Church is concerned, based on the info she gave, the marriage in not valid because of “lack of form”.

I think the lack of form means it is not a sacramental marriage, and that it is illicit, but that does not mean “invalid”. She is presumed to be in a natural marriage.

We are both baptized Roman Catholic

This makes it odd that you would be told it was “not recognized by the Church”.

all attempts at marriage outside the Church for a Roman Catholic are both always illicit and invalid

I don’t think this is the case. I think it is not considered a sacramental marriage, and it is not licit, but I think it is still treated as valid.

 

[TheOldColonel]

Merely speak to a Canonist in your diocese and you’ll see what I’ve stated is true. Indeed, you might do that first before continuing to advise the faithful on such matters.

 

[guanophore]

Merely speak to a Canonist in your diocese and you’ll see what I’ve stated is true. Indeed, you might do that first before continuing to advise the faithful on such matters.

Actually I have not advised the faithful on this matter, other than to encourage the OP to persist in meeting with the parish priest. After reading the rest of the thread and learning that the OP and the spouse were both baptized Catholic, it would seem that, according to canon law, the marriage is considered a sacramental marriage. Valid, but illicit.

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…
Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage…

 

[PetraG]

You are not saying that a defect in form is not cause for a finding of nullify?

A marriage can be invalid even if entered into in good faith.

 

[TheOldColonel]

What you describe is not sacramental due to defect of form. Review the canons on impediments to marriage and you will see this. Indeed, such a defect is a ground for nullity. I’ve assisted with many such cases at my tribunal.

 

[Reuben_J]

Good morning,
I’m very new to this forum so please bear with me. I could use a bit of advice. I am Roman Catholic. (I attended Catholic school. I can assure you that I was never taught canon law.) My relationship with God has been a rocky one but I made a conscious decision to become closer to Him about 2 years ago. I have been married to a non-believer for 18 years. We have 3 children all baptized in the Catholic Church. He does not stand in the way of my faith/beliefs.
I attempted to confess my sins last week after about 25 years. The priest was not from our parish and basically told me he would be unable to absolve me since my marriage isn’t acknowledged by the church. I went to the rectory office and requested to meet with our parish priest to help me get this all sorted out. I haven’t heard from anyone yet and it’s been almost a week. I had been receiving the Eucharist up to that point and honestly didn’t realize that I was in the wrong. I have since stopped and am anxious to right my wrongs and move on. My question is how long do I wait? Should I look to another parish? I’m scared because I have become so close to God these past few years and I’m finally ready to admit my sins and work past them but how will I do that with no support from my priest?
Thanks to those who take the time to read this and not ridicule me.

Praise the Lord. Welcome back to the Church. Keep on persevering. Meet the priest to resolve whatever that is needed for you to receive the Sacraments. God will make a way for you.

God bless.

 

[HolySpirit1]

SFJ, im sorry to hear you are having a hard time at the moment with recieving the sacrament of reconciliation, the shortest answer that makes any sense is to merely keep checking back with your local parish to meet with your priest that you are familiar with so that you can clarify and rectify your situation at hand.

It shouldn’t be a very hard process to clear up, though you may have to be very patient as scheduling a time to get the process rolling could take a few weeks or longer, but shouldnt take more than a month or two.

If you dont hear anything soon, consider contacting your diocesan office directly and ask to be directed to a priest who can set up a time to talk to you.

Stay calm, dont get discouraged , an just continue to pray.

 

[MrsAngelala]

::

@SFJ, this is exactly what I mean. Don’t let the internet parse this for you.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Going to assume all parties below are free to marry (no former marriages and if there is a baptized Catholic they have followed the laws of the Church).

Baptized non Catholic + Baptized Catholic = Valid, Sacramental Marriage

Baptized Catholic + Baptized Catholic = Valid, Sacramental Marriage

Baptized non-Catholic + Baptized non-Catholic married at an Elvis Chapel in Vegas or the Courthouse or underwater in scuba gear = Valid, Sacramental Marriage

Baptized Christian (Catholic or non) + unbaptized person = Valid, Natural Marriage

Two unbaptized people who marry in a Wiccan ceremony or on a steamship or in a field of lillies = Valid, Natural Marriage.

What cannot happen is an INValid, Sacramental marriage. That is a square circle.

 

[TheLittleLady]

There is a difference between “invalid” and “illicit”. Baptized Catholics are bound by canon law, so they are required to be married according to that law. But those who are married outside that law (illicit) are still considered validly married.

This is confusing and inaccurate.

An illicit marriage is not a valid marriage, the thing that would make the marriage illicit would also cause invalidity unless there were some obscure problem with getting proper permission from the Diocese, and even then I’d wager that a convalidation would be required.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This makes it odd that you would be told it was “not recognized by the Church”.

Because they attempted marriage without “going through” the Church.

 

[Wesrock]

guanophore:

There is a difference between “invalid” and “illicit”. Baptized Catholics are bound by canon law, so they are required to be married according to that law. But those who are married outside that law (illicit) are still considered validly married.

This is confusing and inaccurate.

An illicit marriage is not a valid marriage, the thing that would make the marriage illicit would also cause invalidity unless there were some obscure problem with getting proper permission from the Diocese, and even then I’d wager that a convalidation would be required.

A sacrament can be illicit but still valid, but I believe guanophore is still incorrect in this case.

TheOldColonel:

Merely speak to a Canonist in your diocese and you’ll see what I’ve stated is true. Indeed, you might do that first before continuing to advise the faithful on such matters.

Actually I have not advised the faithful on this matter, other than to encourage the OP to persist in meeting with the parish priest. After reading the rest of the thread and learning that the OP and the spouse were both baptized Catholic, it would seem that, according to canon law, the marriage is considered a sacramental marriage. Valid, but illicit.

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…
Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage…

Key word being valid. A Catholic marrying outside the Church has an invalid marriage. Such a marriage can be annulled because it lacks validity. The lack of form without dispensation is actually an impediment to a valid marriage. It’s not just a matter of it being illicit.