I guess I’m confused. How can two baptized Protestants be sacramentally married if they were not married in the Catholic Church?
Non-Catholics are not required to follow Catholic marriage laws. Their marriages (assuming no impediments such as a prior marriage) are valid. Only Catholics are required to be married according to Catholic rules. (Similarly, the Orthodox have rules on what is required for a valid marriage; Protestant communities are generally looser in terms of what is acceptable.)
Thanks for the info and the correction.
It is possible, however now people are ignoring the original question.
I would say that a husband divorcing his wife (after ?? years of marriage) with the only reason given that she converted to “any” religion could show that he did not commit fully to faithful marriage if he can turn his back on his vows for such a reason.
The OP assumes that these people are in a sacramental marraige. However, two baptized persons married in a church…even the Catholic church…aren’t necessarily in a sacramental marriage. They may have held certain beliefs at the time of the wedding that would invalidate the sacrament. One example, already noted, is the view that marriage isn’t a permanent state. There are many other reasons as well that the marriage might be deemed invalid. It is complicated to say the least.Thanks for the info and the correction.
Since they’re both in a sacramental marriage then I don’t believe they are able to get an annulment. The husband may divorce his wife in the eyes of society, but in the eyes of God they’re still married and I believe the wife is therefore called to pray for her husband’s conversion and to offer her sufferings for this intention. I don’t believe his disbelief in the Catholic faith is grounds for annulment. Then again as proven above, I’m not well educated in these matters. I would have the wife talk with a priest.
A Declaration of Nullity is based solely on the conditions prior to and up to the wedding. If a valid marriage existed at the time of the wedding, the scenario above would not provide a basis for such a declaration. Also if both were baptised non-catholics, there marriage is sacramental. However, the sacramentality of the marriage is also not a factor in making a declaration of nullity. So, given that there are no other relevant facts, a declaration of nullity would not be granted. The key statement in the scenerio is “married to each other with no impediments”. This is the definition of a valid marriage. A valid marriage cannot be declared null.
She could certainly try. But there’s no guarantee it would be granted. The situation would need to be investigated just as any other tribunal case needs to be investigated. The husband deciding to leave because of her conversion would not by itself automatically indicate that the union was entered invalidly.
This is not something we should be commenting on as it is the decision of the cognizant Tribunal whether or not the marriage was valid.
This is the way I understand it as well. At the end of the the process the Tribunal declares the marriage “null and void” from its inception.
As has been stated already, you have forced a “No” answer by stating the conditions.
No, not on the grounds you’ve given. If you had the Pauline Privilege in mind it can’t apply to a sacramental marriage.
A sacramental marriage occurs when two baptized Christians marry. They don’t have to be Catholics to have a sacramental marriage.
That article is out-of-date. It also incorrect. Failure to get permission for a mixed marriage does not invalidate marriage.
Close, but not quite. The effect is that no one can claim that a ‘formal defection’ that took place from 10/26/2009 or later has any effect, since on that date, the notion of ‘formal defection’ was removed from the CIC. However, anyone who claims ‘formal defection’ from the point that the 1983 CIC was promulgated, up through 10/25/2009, still makes a reasonable claim under canon law (and that claim would have to be taken into account). Therefore, isn’t quite as “out of date” as you claim. If a Catholic claims that they left the Church through a formal act, and that act is claimed to have been made between 1983 and 2009, then the information in the article holds.
Agreed; hopefully, it was just an oversight. As a historical note, though, it’s worth mentioning that, in the 1917 code, mixed marriage was an impediment! (Even so, though, it was an impedient impediment – it affected liceity, not validity…)