Totally Hypothetical Question About Marriage: Disappearing Spouse

[Melchior_1]

My wife as half asleep when she had a random thought jump in her head.

“If I got kidnapped by terrorists, return ten years later, and my husband is re-married…what happens?”

My first instinct; without clear proof of her death, I wouldn’t be free to marry within the Church a second time.

Thoughts?

 

[jmcrae]

My wife as half asleep when she had a random thought jump in her head.

“If I got kidnapped by terrorists, return ten years later, and my husband is re-married…what happens?”

My first instinct; without clear proof of her death, I wouldn’t be free to marry within the Church a second time.

Thoughts?

It reminds me of a really bad movie I saw one time.

I have no idea what you would do in a situation like that. The Church would most likely consider you married to your first spouse, but the pastoral situation would be extremely tricky, especially if there were children in the second marriage.

 

[Edmundus1581]

It was surely not hypothetical in years past, when people could go on a journey or military campaign and get kidnapped, marooned, imprisoned, sold into slavery, etc. (or just choose to settle somewhere else), without any means of notifying their spouse. I have sometimes wondered what the Church’s response was, especially if the wife had children and no means of supporting them.

 

[chevalier]

My wife as half asleep when she had a random thought jump in her head.

“If I got kidnapped by terrorists, return ten years later, and my husband is re-married…what happens?”

My first instinct; without clear proof of her death, I wouldn’t be free to marry within the Church a second time.

Thoughts?

I doubt mere disappearance would be enough to get a canonical declaration of death for the purpose of declaring you free to marry. Even a civil one would take ages.

I have no idea what you would do in a situation like that. The Church would most likely consider you married to your first spouse, but the pastoral situation would be extremely tricky, especially if there were children in the second marriage.

Since the Church has no power to dissolve a marriage even if she wanted it, she can’t do it by mistake either. With an objectively mistaken presumption of death of spouse, a person is still married to the first spouse. Pastoral situation likely to be very difficult, yeah.

---

Canon law:

Can. 1707 §1. Whenever the death of a spouse cannot be proven by an authentic ecclesiastical or civil document, the other spouse is not considered free from the bond of marriage until after the diocesan bishop has issued a declaration of presumed death.

§2. The diocesan bishop is able to issue the declaration mentioned in §1 only if, after having carried out appropriate investigations, he attains moral certitude of the death of the spouse from the depositions of witnesses, from rumor, or from evidence. The absence of a spouse alone, even for a long time, is not sufficient.

§3. The bishop is to consult the Apostolic See in uncertain and complicated cases.

Source: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P6S.HTM

Dr. Peters’s blog:

canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/notes-on-canon-law-of-presumed-death.html

Unlike people on the Internet, I believe the children of the second “marriage” would be legitimate as always in a putative marriage.

 

[Corki]

There was a thread about this a few years ago. There is a diocisan process for the Bishop to declare the remaining spouse free to marry.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=388910

It’s more complicated than just being missing for X year, like the civil process. But I don’t know what would happen if the original wife turned up later.

 

[bluerose]

It reminds me of a really bad movie I saw one time.
.

Let me guess… “Welcome Home” starring Kris Kristofferson?

 

[jmcrae]

Let me guess… “Welcome Home” starring Kris Kristofferson?

Worse - “Too Many Husbands,” 1940, with Jean Arthur. I can’t find any clips on YouTube, but it was about a woman who, when her first husband (thought killed in war) returns, she decides to try to keep both of her husbands - in the same house.

I think it was supposed to be funny …

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I would think if we’re talking 10 years go by or something, the spouse could be presumed dead. It would get tricky if that “dead” spouse turned up and there was a re-marriage, but no sin either because “the spouse was presumed dead”. The question becomes, is the remarried spouse required to return to Spouse #1?

 

[WoundedIcon]

Well, yes, if we want to talk about canon law and culpability for sin then the person who married again should be fine so long as the proper avenues were taken to have the person declared to be presumably dead by the bishop — but what about the sacramental bond? That adds a whole new layer to this chip dip of a conundrum. The first marriage is still a sacramental bond as long as the missing spouse is alive (even if they’ve been declared presumably dead) and a second marriage wouldn’t be validly sacramental despite the declaration. That means if the first wife shows up again the second marriage absolutely must to be ended under pain of sin.

 

[chevalier]

I would think if we’re talking 10 years go by or something, the spouse could be presumed dead. It would get tricky if that “dead” spouse turned up and there was a re-marriage, but no sin either because “the spouse was presumed dead”. The question becomes, is the remarried spouse required to return to Spouse #1?

Nope, not disappearance alone. Disappearance alone does not suffice for canonical presumption of death. Circumstances pointing towards death must be present. The second sentence of can. 1707 § 2 is: “The absence of a spouse alone, even for a long time, is not sufficient.”

And yes, the “remarried” spouse is required to return to the first (and only) spouse.

Well, yes, if we want to talk about canon law and culpability for sin then the person who married again should be fine so long as the proper avenues were taken to have the person declared to be presumably dead by the bishop — but what about the sacramental bond? That adds a whole new layer to this chip dip of a conundrum.

There is no conundrum, there is one marriage and one non-marriage.

The first marriage is still a sacramental bond as long as the missing spouse is alive (even if they’ve been declared presumably dead) and a second marriage wouldn’t be validly sacramental despite the declaration. That means if the first wife shows up again the second marriage absolutely must to be ended under pain of sin.

Yes.

 

[Melchior_1]

Nope, not disappearance alone. Disappearance alone does not suffice for canonical presumption of death. Circumstances pointing towards death must be present. The second sentence of can. 1707 § 2 is: "The absence of a spouse alone, even for a long time, is not sufficient.

So does this mean you need physical evidence of death to re-marry?

 

[ConstantineTG]

My wife as half asleep when she had a random thought jump in her head.

“If I got kidnapped by terrorists, return ten years later, and my husband is re-married…what happens?”

My first instinct; without clear proof of her death, I wouldn’t be free to marry within the Church a second time.

Thoughts?

I think the Church would honor the civil definition of presumption of death. You can be legally presumed dead, therefore the Church will allow you to marry again. If the spouse surfaces years later, I think the Church will allow you to keep your current marriage because it was done in good will.

 

[Bill_Martin]

So does this mean you need physical evidence of death to re-marry?

It doesn’t say physical evidence. It is more a matter of probability based on circumstances.

Example 1: Wife is kidnapped and held in a foreign country.

Example 2: Wife is involved in a plane crash at sea and is thought to be dead, but actually survived it and was not rescued for a long time.

In the first example, there is no such event that would point towards death. She was last seen alive and nothing has happened that we know of that would indicate otherwise.

In the second example, the husband would likely be permitted to remarry because there is a strong reason to believe his wife is dead, even if there is no physical evidence of it (ie no body recovered).

 

[chevalier]

So does this mean you need physical evidence of death to re-marry?

You need circumstances pointing towards the possibility of death. Merely going away and not coming back is not enough, as the canon literally says. On the other hand, going missing in action during a battle or being recorded as a passenger on a sip than has sunk, points towards the possibility of death.

I think the Church would honor the civil definition of presumption of death.

A civil presumption of death is not enough. Being or not presumed dead at civil law has no relevance. Only evidence from the civil proceedings could be used in the canonical proceedings (no reason not to).

If the spouse surfaces years later, I think the Church will allow you to keep your current marriage because it was done in good will.

No, absolutely not. An ecclesiastic presumption of death cannot dissolve a marriage and a couple can never be allowed to continue in what is not marriage, nor can one marry when the spouse is alive (regardless of good faith).

It is merely that there is no fault (no subjective adultery), and the children are, I believe, legitimate.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

So does this mean you need physical evidence of death to re-marry?

No, but the Church needs evidence from civil proceedings pointing to evidence of death. For example, a soldier who never returned from the war with his unit might be presumed dead.

 

[clskier]

“Dear,” asked a wife. “What would you do if I died?”

“Why dear, I would be extremely upset,” said the husband. “Why do you ask such a question?”

“Would you remarry?” persevered the wife.

“No, of course not, dear” said the husband.

“Don’t you like being married?” asked the wife.

“Of course I do, dear” he said.

“Then why wouldn’t you remarry?”

“All right,” said the husband, “I’d remarry.”

“You would?” said the wife, looking vaguely hurt.

“Yes,” said the husband.

“Would you sleep with her in our bed?” asked the wife.

After a long pause. “Well, yes, I suppose I would,” replied the husband.

“I see,” said the wife indignantly. “And would you let her wear my old clothes?”

“I suppose, if she wanted to,” said the husband.

“Really,” said the wife icily. “And would you take down the pictures of me and replace them with pictures of her?”

“Yes. I think that would be the correct thing to do.”

“Is that so?” said the wife, leaping to her feet. “And I suppose you’d let her play with my golf clubs, too!?”

“Of course not, dear,” said the husband. “She’s left-handed.”