Terminology question: "invalid" marriage

[jbettin]

I’ve tried to research this, but haven’t managed to find answers that totally clarify things for me.

What, precisely, does it mean when a marriage is “invalid”? Does it mean that no marriage actually took place? If so, is “invalid” the same thing as “null”?

And, for further clarification, how does that differ from a marriage which is “illicit”? I’m assuming that a marriage can be illicit, but valid?

I’m also assuming that marriages which are invalid and/or illicit are not sacramental marriages. Is that correct?

If anybody has a link to an article that would simply define terms, that’d be helpful. Thanks!

 

[Phemie]

I’ve tried to research this, but haven’t managed to find answers that totally clarify things for me.

What, precisely, does it mean when a marriage is “invalid”? Does it mean that no marriage actually took place? If so, is “invalid” the same thing as “null”?

Yes, if a marriage is ‘invalid’ it means no marriage took place.

And, for further clarification, how does that differ from a marriage which is “illicit”? I’m assuming that a marriage can be illicit, but valid?

I’m also assuming that marriages which are invalid and/or illicit are not sacramental marriages. Is that correct?

Yes, an illicit marriage is valid. Let me give you an example.

A Catholic who wants to marry a baptized non-Catholic needs the bishops ‘permission’ to do so. Many bishops simply give their priests the faculty to grant that permission but not all do.

On the other hand, a Catholic cannot contract a marriage with a non-baptized person because disparity of cult (non-baptism) is an impediment to a valid marriage. It is an impediment which can be dispensed but that means the priest has to petition the Bishop for a dispensation to be allowed to witness such a marriage.

Now let’s suppose a priest who does not have faculty from his bishop to give permission goes ahead and witnesses the marriage of a Catholic and an Anglican. The marriage is illicit because the bishop did not give permission but the marriage is still valid, and yes, sacramental. As long as a marriage between two baptized persons is valid, it’s sacramental.

Now, if the Catholic went to the same priest to marry a Jew or a Muslim and the priest did it without obtaining a dispensation, the marriage would be invalid. Obviously if there is no marriage there is no sacrament.

 

[jbettin]

That was very helpful – thanks!

 

[Elizium23]

I am not sure you could describe a marriage as illicit. Perhaps this term is more applicable to the wedding ceremony. In the example Phemie gives, it is likely that the priest is the one who acted illicitly and the couple has no culpability. They are not living in sin or somehow outside the law as a married couple. It is just the fact that the ceremony happened without all the pieces in place.

 

[FrDavid96]

Coincidentally, Dr. Ed P----- recently posted on his blog about this very subject.

Here’s the link:
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

 

[Phemie]

]
Now, if the Catholic went to the same priest to marry a Jew or a Muslim and the priest did it without obtaining a dispensation, the marriage would be invalid. Obviously if there is no marriage there is no sacrament.

Fr. David reminded me that I should have added this:
If the priest had petitioned for and received a dispensation to marry the Catholic/Muslim or Catholic/Jew couple the marriage would have been valid but still non-sacramental because it is Baptism that makes it a sacrament, not the validity.

 

[jbettin]

Ack! I thought I understood, but now I’m confused again. Dr. Peters says:

“The annulment process is about the validity of marriage and only about validity; a successful petition results in a “declaration of nullity”, not in a declaration of non-sacramentality.”

I understand (or think I understand) what’s meant by sacramentality. But what exactly is validity, if it’s not the same as sacramentality?

 

[Elizium23]

Ack! I thought I understood, but now I’m confused again. Dr. Peters says:

“The annulment process is about the validity of marriage and only about validity; a successful petition results in a “declaration of nullity”, not in a declaration of non-sacramentality.”

I understand (or think I understand) what’s meant by sacramentality. But what exactly is validity, if it’s not the same as sacramentality?

If a marriage exists, it is valid. If a marriage is not sacramental, then it is natural.

 

[jbettin]

OK, I think I got it.

So, under these circumstances, the marriage would be illicit, but valid and sacramental:

• baptized, confirmed, but non-practicing Catholic bride
• baptized but non-practicing Protestant groom
• wedding performed outside of church, with no permission from the bishop
• neither party previously married

If, however, the groom were non-baptized (all other circumstances the same), the marriage would be both invalid and non-sacramental.

Do I have that right?

 

[FrDavid96]

If a marriage exists, it is valid. If a marriage is not sacramental, then it is natural.

That’s correct, but I fear it may confuse things even more.

For that reason, I want to clarify that the important part of what you wrote is “if a marriage exists.”

What it does not mean (lest someone misunderstand you) is that if an attempt at marriage is not a sacrament, then it follows that it is a “natural marriage” instead.

For example: If two Catholics get married by a Justice of the Peace, it’s not a “natural marriage”; it’s an invalid attempt at marriage.

 

[FrDavid96]

OK, I think I got it.

So, under these circumstances, the marriage would be illicit, but valid and sacramental:

• baptized, confirmed, but non-practicing Catholic bride
• baptized but non-practicing Protestant groom
• wedding performed outside of church, with no permission from the bishop
• neither party previously married

…

Do I have that right?

Unfortunately, no.

Since the bride was baptized Catholic, she is bound to follow canonical form (married by a priest or deacon*).

That situation is illicit, invalid, and non-sacramental. It’s an invalid attempt at marriage.

---

*Admittedly, there’s more to it than that. Some of us know that if they’re stranded on a desert island for years, they can validly marry in front of witnesses alone. Let’s not go there, please. We all know what the poster means.

 

[jbettin]

That saddens me. We had two family weddings in the past week which met the above description. Hence, my question.

If everyone reading this could please pray for these two couples, I’d be grateful!

 

[ammitchell]

what about if the situation is this:
baptized catholic woman
unbaptized man (who everyone thought was baptized)

No special permission obtained by priest who witnessed wedding because he thought (was told be the unbaptized man so) that the man was a baptized Christian who was also in RCIA at the time to become catholic.

I know it could not have been sacramental because the man was not baptized, but what if he got baptized later, and was it valid at least?

 

[Vico]

what about if the situation is this:
baptized catholic woman
unbaptized man (who everyone thought was baptized)

No special permission obtained by priest who witnessed wedding because he thought (was told be the unbaptized man so) that the man was a baptized Christian who was also in RCIA at the time to become catholic.

I know it could not have been sacramental because the man was not baptized, but what if he got baptized later, and was it valid at least?

It is not valid.

A marriage between a Catholic and non-baptized person is an impediment and requires a dispensation (but between a Catholic and a validly baptized non-Catholic Christian requires permission). A radical sanation is obtained to correct this impediment.

(If the man was in RICA, with the assumption that he was baptized, then he would not be a catechumen but rather being received into full communion with a declaration of faith. Then confirmed.)

Disparity of Cult (canon 1086).CIC Can. 1086 **
§1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.
§2. A person is not to be dispensed from this impediment unless the conditions mentioned in cann. 1125 and 1126 have been fulfilled.
**
CIC Can. 1124
Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[ammitchell]

OK thank you very much for the clarification

 

[His_helpmeet]

An invalid marriage means that something was fundamentally missing from the marriage covenant. For one or another reason, the couple did not have a marriage.

That said, this does NOT mean that they never had a relationship. Obviously, they had a wedding, they had a civil contract, and more than likely they had a conjugal life as a family. That part is very true. If there were children born to the marriage, as long as one party entered the marriage in good faith (this is called a putative marriage) the children are not illegitimate.

 

[FrDavid96]

what about if the situation is this:
baptized catholic woman
unbaptized man (who everyone thought was baptized)

No special permission obtained by priest who witnessed wedding because he thought (was told be the unbaptized man so) that the man was a baptized Christian who was also in RCIA at the time to become catholic.

I know it could not have been sacramental because the man was not baptized, but what if he got baptized later, and was it valid at least?

That marriage is presumed to be valid unless and until it is proven with certainty that he was never baptized.

 

[Vico]

OK thank you very much for the clarification

To add to what FrDavid96 wrote: Can. 1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Can. 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.

So it is no longer presumed valid once both parties know there was no baptism and that it means an invalidating impediment exists.

 

[Phemie]

To add to what FrDavid96 wrote: Can. 1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Can. 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.

So it is no longer presumed valid once both parties know there was no baptism and that it means an invalidating impediment exists.

Fr. David, is it then possible for the priest to petition for a dispensation and convalidate the marriage through a radical sanation without involving the couple?

 

[FrDavid96]

To add to what FrDavid96 wrote: Can. 1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Can. 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.

So it is no longer presumed valid once both parties know there was no baptism and that it means an invalidating impediment exists.

That’s not true.

The marriage is presumed valid unless and until it becomes a proven fact that one party was not baptized. Unless it’s proven with certainty that the party was not baptized, the marriage is presumed valid and still enjoys the favor of the law.

One cannot go around telling people on the internet that a marriage is invalid without knowing the facts. CAF is not a marriage tribunal.

You’re right to quote canon 1061 but that needs to be explained that “both parties become certain of its nullity” does not mean that the parties decide this for themselves, or decide for themselves (in this case) whether or not a baptism took place.

-]If the baptism (or lack of it) is later discovered/-], until that’s proven, the marriage continues to enjoy the favor of the law.

*Edit: * That should read "If the lack-of-baptism is later discovered…