Some COmplex Pre-Conversion Marriage Situations

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

OK, so, here’s the situation:

A person got married and then divorced their spouse. This happened before that person converted to Catholicism and that person grew up in a tradition that permitted divorce. In fact, both of the spouses grew up in that tradition. This person’s second spouse also grew up in this tradition. However, let us say that both this person and their second spouse convert to Catholicism.

Would this person then be required to annul their marriage with their second spouse and return to their first if that first spouse were living and even if the person had had children with the second spouse? What if the spouse from who the person was divorced is now married to another and has children by that second marriage? Would the person’s first spouse also be required to annul their marriage to their second spouse (especially, again, theoretically, if they, too, had seen the light and converted)?

Or, rather, would all these previous marriages be considered not performed according properloy sacramentally and therefore both would be considered invalid and either one would have to be validated by the Church? Still, in that case, would the Church require that each person return to their original spouse no matter what the circumstances?

Gratias.

 

[1ke]

Would this person then be required to annul their marriage with their second spouse and return to their first if that first spouse were living and even if the person had had children with the second spouse?

Before said person could be received into the church their irregular marriage situation would have to be resolved. This would be discussed during the RCIA process.

As I read your scenario:

Person A married and divorced Person B (neither of who had been married before) and then married a Person C, who had not been married before. None of these people were baptized Catholic.

Person A is validly married to Person B unless proven otherwise. Person A could petition for a declaration of nullity for their marriage to Person B. If affirmed, then they are validly married to Person C. Depending on the baptismal status of A and B at the time of marriage and currently, Person A may have recourse to the Pauline or Petrine privilege to dissolve a natural bond of marriage between A and B.

If Person A does not receive a declaration of nullity or dissolution of the bond, then Person A and Person B are validly married and not free to marry. Therefore, they would need to discuss the way forward with their pastor. That might include separating from C or living in continence with C and their children.

The answer to your question about returning to the first spouse is an unqualified no.

What if the spouse from who the person was divorced is now married to another and has children by that second marriage?

That is not relevant.

Would the person’s first spouse also be required to annul their marriage to their second spouse (especially, again, theoretically, if they, too, had seen the light and converted)?

Person A has no authority over Person B, nor does the Church. The answer is “no” the church neither has nor could enforce such a requirement.

If Person B wants to become Catholic they would either petition for a declaration of nullity or dissolution of the bond themselves, or if Person A had already done so then Person B is also free to marry.

Or, rather, would all these previous marriages be considered not performed according properloy sacramentally and therefore both would be considered invalid and either one would have to be validated by the Church?

No.

When nonCatholics marry civilly they marry validly, (see my standard footnote disclaimer. The exception is the Orthodox and other particular Churches with valid holy orders who also have a requirement of canonical form).

Still, in that case, would the Church require that each person return to their original spouse no matter what the circumstances? .

The Church does not require that in any case.

 

[1ke]

This chart might be helpful to study:

live.lcdiocese.org/annulments/determine.htm

And this one on Ligamen is useful as well:

arlingtondiocese.org/tribunal/documents/cases_ligamen.pdf

 

[Corki]

Would this person then be required to annul their marriage with their second spouse and return to their first …

It might be helpful to understand how the Church and her tribunals look at complex marriage situations.

The first step is to look at the** first** marriage. A second marriage wouldn’t be annulled unless it is found that the person was free to marry and that can only be determined by looking at the first marriage.

 

[Casilda]

OP, I usually enjoy contemplating your thought inducing ramblings May I ask what prompted this interest into the netherland maze of marriage tribunal legalisms?

Are you planning a career in canon law? Do you want to assist couples by way of counseling?

When a sincere couple contemplating conversion into the Catholic Church much harm and damage comes from treating them as Person A and Person B. They are two souls waiting to be united with Christ’s Church.

I was told our situation was easily remedied. There were no previous marriages, we had only been married to each other, for over 30+ years. The glitch was I was baptized AND not confirmed Catholic and didn’t get permission to marry my husband outside of the church. Yet no one knew how to help us. To complicate matters further, my husband now wanted to be Catholic. Needless to say, he never converted to Roman Catholicism and I never was reconciled. We are Eastern Catholic.

My advice to you, unless you genuinely want to counsel couples rightly or become a Canon lawyer, don’t superficially delve into these murky waters. The ‘advice’ you may offer can harm a person’s soul.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Before said person could be received into the church their irregular marriage situation would have to be resolved. This would be discussed during the RCIA process.

As I read your scenario:

Person A married and divorced Person B (neither of who had been married before) and then married a Person C, who had not been married before. None of these people were baptized Catholic.

Person A is validly married to Person B unless proven otherwise. Person A could petition for a declaration of nullity for their marriage to Person B. If affirmed, then they are validly married to Person C. Depending on the baptismal status of A and B at the time of marriage and currently, Person A may have recourse to the Pauline or Petrine privilege to dissolve a natural bond of marriage between A and B.

If Person A does not receive a declaration of nullity or dissolution of the bond, then Person A and Person B are validly married and not free to marry. Therefore, they would need to discuss the way forward with their pastor. That might include separating from C or living in continence with C and their children.

The answer to your question about returning to the first spouse is an unqualified no.

That is not relevant.

Person A has no authority over Person B, nor does the Church. The answer is “no” the church neither has nor could enforce such a requirement.

If Person B wants to become Catholic they would either petition for a declaration of nullity or dissolution of the bond themselves, or if Person A had already done so then Person B is also free to marry.

No.

When nonCatholics marry civilly they marry validly, (see my standard footnote disclaimer. The exception is the Orthodox and other particular Churches with valid holy orders who also have a requirement of canonical form).

The Church does not require that in any case.

Thanks for all the help so far.

You mention that when non-Catholics marry civilly, it is valid. However, since many Protestants marry these days thinking that divorce for reasons other than adultery is permissible and that re-marriage afterward is also permissible, does that not mean that those who believe this are not technically marrying under the Catholic definition of marriage? Would that, then, not be grounds for a declaration of nullity? Would not, then, all Protestants who marry with these views in mind technically not be married under the Catholic (as they consider it, true and correct) definition of marriage? Indeed, technically, would these beliefs not be in line with the Catholic definition of a lifelong commitment?

 

[1ke]

You mention that when non-Catholics marry civilly, it is valid.

Correct.

However, since many Protestants marry these days thinking that divorce for reasons other than adultery is permissible and that re-marriage afterward is also permissible, does that not mean that those who believe this are not technically marrying under the Catholic definition of marriage?

No.

Can. 1099 Error concerning the unity or indissolubility or sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent provided that it does not determine the will.

Can. 1101 §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.

§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

Would that, then, not be grounds for a declaration of nullity?

No. Not per se.

Would not, then, all Protestants who marry with these views in mind technically not be married under the Catholic (as they consider it, true and correct) definition of marriage?

No.

Indeed, technically, would these beliefs not be in line with the Catholic definition of a lifelong commitment?

“Views” (a.k.a. “stuff you’ve been taught”) do not determine the will.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Correct.

No.

Can. 1099 Error concerning the unity or indissolubility or sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent provided that it does not determine the will.

Can. 1101 §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.

§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

No. Not per se.

No.

“Views” (a.k.a. “stuff you’ve been taught”) do not determine the will.

Still somewhat confused.

So, are you saying that, since the vows (at least in most marrriage ceremonies today) include a declaration of lifelong fidelity, then that marriage is valid, even though the parties might, in actuality, be willing to dissolve the marriage for various grounds in the future, if issues come up?

What if someone comes from a tradition that does not in any way emphasize the indissoluability of marriage and, indeed, permits divorce for a number of reasons? Would such a marriage, if contracted, be subject to being declared null?

 

[1ke]

So, are you saying that, since the vows (at least in most marrriage ceremonies today) include a declaration of lifelong fidelity, then that marriage is valid, even though the parties might, in actuality, be willing to dissolve the marriage for various grounds in the future, if issues come up?

I’m saying it has the presumption of validity.

Beliefs about marriage or prior family experiences do not determine the will. In general, what you say in the exchange of your vows is presumed to conform to your internal disposition.

You would have to prove otherwise if you later petitioned for declaration of nullity.

What if someone comes from a tradition that does not in any way emphasize the indissoluability of marriage and, indeed, permits divorce for a number of reasons? Would such a marriage, if contracted, be subject to being declared null?

Already answered. Their tradition and background do not determine the will. Family of origin or religious denomination doesn’t determine the will. You could come from a tradition that allows divorce, or a family of origin that included divorce, and you could still consent to a lifelong marriage.

Their exchange of consent is presumed to be valid, unless it is proven otherwise.

 

[dans0622]

Still somewhat confused.

So, are you saying that, since the vows (at least in most marrriage ceremonies today) include a declaration of lifelong fidelity, then that marriage is valid, even though the parties might, in actuality, be willing to dissolve the marriage for various grounds in the future, if issues come up?

What if someone comes from a tradition that does not in any way emphasize the indissoluability of marriage and, indeed, permits divorce for a number of reasons? Would such a marriage, if contracted, be subject to being declared null?

Based on what I’ve seen in marriage nullity cases, I offer the following remarks:

There are quite a significant number of people who may well have said something like “I will divorce him if he cheats on me” or “If she ever uses drugs again, I will divorce” but then, when those unfortunate events occur, actually do *not *divorce until some time has passed and the other Party remains obstinate in the illicit behavior.

The same is true if the comment is “adultery ends a marriage” but, when adultery occurs, there is an attempt to maintain the marriage.

In these cases, we can see that the person actually chose a marriage which was different from what they said they believed marriage to be.

In other words, on spite of a erroneous understanding of marriage, the vast majority of people still want to have a faithful, permanent union. As has already been said, an error about the essential properties of marriage does not necessarily make the person choose the erroneous “marriage.”

Ignorance is a different matter. I have yet to see any case where a person claimed to have been ignorant of the nature of marriage (i.e., it is a permanent, heterosexual partnership ordered to children. Permanence, by the way, is different from indissolubility).

Dan