Valid/Invalid Marriage Question

[Minion_w_a_drum]

This is something I’ve wondered for a long time.
I’ll use a hypothetical, which is very common, to pose my question.
2 people get married in the Catholic Church. They then get a civil divorce. One party then petitions for an annulment, or nullity, and it is granted. This nullity states that the first marriage was never valid, and thus the 2 people were never considered married according to the church. Both parties are now free to marry in the Catholic Church.

Okay, let’s say the couple never gets divorced. Ever. Does that mean they actually lived in mortal sin from the time they said “I do” until one party died? While they “believed” they were married, and while everyone looked at them and “thought” they were married. The fact remains, if they applied for an annulment it would get invalidated.
Even if one party “believed” they were married and the other did not, that is grounds to invalidate the marriage. So their marriage is nothing but a ruse. It doesn’t seem right. I would hardly think God would hold it against them. But I do wonder how he views it.

 

[WillyAL]

Okay, let’s say the couple never gets divorced. Ever. Does that mean they actually lived in mortal sin from the time they said “I do” until one party died? While they “believed” they were married, and while everyone looked at them and “thought” they were married. The fact remains, if they applied for an annulment it would get invalidated.

My understanding is that if a marriage has never been declared invalid by the Tribunal it is assumed to be valid, and everyone is “on solid footing” mortal sin-wise if they live by that assumption.

 

[jmcrae]

This is something I’ve wondered for a long time.
I’ll use a hypothetical, which is very common, to pose my question.
Two people get married in the Catholic Church. They then get a civil divorce. One party then petitions for an annulment, or nullity, and it is granted. This nullity states that the first marriage was never valid, and thus the 2 people were never considered married according to the church. Both parties are now free to marry in the Catholic Church.

Right. The marriage was weak from the get-go - there was a defect of consent. For example, they knew how to say all the right things to the priest, but in reality, one of them was (let’s just pretend, as an example) looking for a substitute parent rather than a marriage partner, and the stress of trying to parent someone of your own age simply became too much to handle.

Okay, let’s say the couple never gets divorced. Ever.

Question: Why do they choose not to get divorced? Social pressure? Family dynamics? Something changes along the way?

Maybe the one (in my pretend scenario) who initially was looking for a parent figure realizes that they can’t continue to make those kinds of demands on their partner - they figure out a way to mature and become the partner that their spouse needs them to be. They look back at the vows they took and understand them for what they were. The marriage (which at an earlier time would have been found null) becomes valid in that moment.

Does that mean they actually lived in mortal sin from the time they said “I do” until one party died? While they “believed” they were married, and while everyone looked at them and “thought” they were married. The fact remains, if they applied for an annulment it would get invalidated.
Even if one party “believed” they were married and the other did not, that is grounds to invalidate the marriage. So their marriage is nothing but a ruse. It doesn’t seem right. I would hardly think God would hold it against them. But I do wonder how he views it.

The presumption is that, if a marriage makes it all the way “until death ye did part”, then it was valid. And if it wasn’t valid, then surely there is a place among the martyrs for the soul who put up with some kind of private and unspeakable hell for 50+ years without ever suing for divorce.

 

[Minion_w_a_drum]

Wow, your pretend scenario hit pretty close to home. It mirrors my situation pretty much to a tee. Sans the annulment. My annulment got denied, but that is for another thread, another time. Or not.
Everything else is there, however. I believe there was a defect at the get go (the church, at least one court, felt differently.)
I stayed in for lots of reasons, stay true to the vows was one, family stigma another, kids another, just thought that is what marriage was another…
In the end, my spouse filed after about 14 years. I knew 6 months in I made a huge mistake, but did nothing to end it.
The big difference though is the Church comes and tells me what I had was holy, sacred and sacramental… And so I sit here today a married person. And I still can’t wrap my head around it. I’ll probably never will.
I guess the only solace I can grab onto is, I never civilly ended a valid marriage. I don’t know, but that doesn’t seem like much, if anything.
Add to it that deep in my heart I completely disagree with the validity of my marriage. Does that make me a person who is questioning God? Believe me, I seriously cannot accept the fact that I am validly married. So what does that say of my honoring God and his decision??? It is all very troubling to me.
I can honestly say to all of you that IF my marriage is holy and sacred and sacramental, I honestly don’t want anything to do with holy and sacred and sacramental.

And this last thought alone is what torments me the most. It absolutely torments me without end.

It’s amazing I haven’t become an alcoholic or a drug addict, lol.

 

[Minion_w_a_drum]

The presumption is that, if a marriage makes it all the way “until death ye did part”, then it was valid. And if it wasn’t valid, then surely there is a place among the martyrs for the soul who put up with some kind of private and unspeakable hell for 50+ years without ever suing for divorce.

I guess I’ll hang my hat on this and roll the dice an hope for the best.

Thanks. I was needing some sort of “pick me up” this evening. thanks for delivering.

 

[Lydia739]

Minion

I am so sorry to hear you find yourself in such a painful place. It sounds agonising.

Looking back, I find it very difficult to assess whether my husband gave valid consent to our marriage. I suspect his main reason for going ahead with it was that he couldn’t handle the “loss of face” that would have been involved in breaking the engagement. He stuck it for 14 years before he found the nerve to deal with the loss of face involved in leaving the marriage.

My understanding is that “giving valid consent” is not at all the same thing as “making a wise choice”. I am quite sure that even if your marriage (or any marriage) was valid, that does not necessarily imply that there was much good about it, or that you are rebelling against God if you regard it as what it was - the result of poor decisions, and a source of misery. The church can teach that your *vows" were holy and sacramental and sacred, without requiring you to belief that *the way in which you and your spouse related to each other" was anything of the kind.

In “Mere Christianity”, C S Lewis wrote:
The husband is the head of the wife just in so far as he is to her what Christ is to the Church - read on - and give his life for her (Eph. V, 25). This headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him, is - in her own mere nature - least lovable. For the Church has not beauty but what the Bride-groom gives her; he does not find, but makes her, lovely. The chrism of this terrible coronation is to be seen not in the joys of any man’s marriage but in its sorrows, in the sickness and sufferings of a good wife or the faults of a bad one, in his unwearying (never paraded) care or his inexhaustible forgiveness: forgiveness, not acquiescence. As Christ sees in the flawed, proud, fanatical or lukewarm Church on earth that Bride who will one day be without spot or wrinkle, and labours to produce the latter, so the husband whose headship is Christ-like (and he is allowed no other sort) never despairs. He is a King Cophetua who after twenty years still hopes that the beggar-girl will one day learn to speak the truth and wash behind her ears.

Now, I’m not trying to get into a discussion of headship in marriage here - it’s not relevant, and submission is meant to be mutual anyway. I don’t even know if you were/are the husband or the wife in your marriage. But I do believe that God honours you for remaining faithful in a marriage that was a source of grief and suffering to you, and that nobody is expecting you to say that up is down, or pain is fun, or evil is good, or that your marriage was lovely, just because the church felt your and your spouse’s consent to the marriage was valid.

I don’t want to have anything to do with martyrdom. I still think martyrdom is holy. There are other holy things that are not only holy but also joyful.

I hope that helps. If it doesn’t, please ignore it.

 

[filiusdextris]

This is something I’ve wondered for a long time.
I’ll use a hypothetical, which is very common, to pose my question.
2 people get married in the Catholic Church. They then get a civil divorce. One party then petitions for an annulment, or nullity, and it is granted. This nullity states that the first marriage was never valid, and thus the 2 people were never considered married according to the church. Both parties are now free to marry in the Catholic Church.

Okay, let’s say the couple never gets divorced. Ever. Does that mean they actually lived in mortal sin from the time they said “I do” until one party died? While they “believed” they were married, and while everyone looked at them and “thought” they were married. The fact remains, if they applied for an annulment it would get invalidated.
Even if one party “believed” they were married and the other did not, that is grounds to invalidate the marriage. So their marriage is nothing but a ruse. It doesn’t seem right. I would hardly think God would hold it against them. But I do wonder how he views it.

I must be missing something. In your second sentence you write that “they then get a civil divorce,” but in the second paragraph you write “the couple never gets divorced.” Can you please reconcile these for me? Are you presenting an alternate hypothetical? (If so, I recommend inserting the word “instead” somewhere.)

 

[1ke]

The fact remains, if they applied for an annulment it would get invalidated.

You do not and cannot know this.

their marriage is nothing but a ruse.

Not at all. Their marriage is a marriage.

Even if it had a defect of consent, at the beginning that defect could be corrected at any point time by one (or both) parties making a new act of consent. This consent can be private.

So, the “sticking it out and never divorcing” could in fact be that consent that makes the marriage valid.

 

[Minion_w_a_drum]

Minion

I am so sorry to hear you find yourself in such a painful place. It sounds agonising.

Looking back, I find it very difficult to assess whether my husband gave valid consent to our marriage. I suspect his main reason for going ahead with it was that he couldn’t handle the “loss of face” that would have been involved in breaking the engagement. He stuck it for 14 years before he found the nerve to deal with the loss of face involved in leaving the marriage.

My understanding is that “giving valid consent” is not at all the same thing as “making a wise choice”. I am quite sure that even if your marriage (or any marriage) was valid, that does not necessarily imply that there was much good about it, or that you are rebelling against God if you regard it as what it was - the result of poor decisions, and a source of misery. The church can teach that your *vows" were holy and sacramental and sacred, without requiring you to belief that *the way in which you and your spouse related to each other" was anything of the kind.

In “Mere Christianity”, C S Lewis wrote:
The husband is the head of the wife just in so far as he is to her what Christ is to the Church - read on - and give his life for her (Eph. V, 25). This headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him, is - in her own mere nature - least lovable. For the Church has not beauty but what the Bride-groom gives her; he does not find, but makes her, lovely. The chrism of this terrible coronation is to be seen not in the joys of any man’s marriage but in its sorrows, in the sickness and sufferings of a good wife or the faults of a bad one, in his unwearying (never paraded) care or his inexhaustible forgiveness: forgiveness, not acquiescence. As Christ sees in the flawed, proud, fanatical or lukewarm Church on earth that Bride who will one day be without spot or wrinkle, and labours to produce the latter, so the husband whose headship is Christ-like (and he is allowed no other sort) never despairs. He is a King Cophetua who after twenty years still hopes that the beggar-girl will one day learn to speak the truth and wash behind her ears.

Now, I’m not trying to get into a discussion of headship in marriage here - it’s not relevant, and submission is meant to be mutual anyway. I don’t even know if you were/are the husband or the wife in your marriage. But I do believe that God honours you for remaining faithful in a marriage that was a source of grief and suffering to you, and that nobody is expecting you to say that up is down, or pain is fun, or evil is good, or that your marriage was lovely, just because the church felt your and your spouse’s consent to the marriage was valid.

I don’t want to have anything to do with martyrdom. I still think martyrdom is holy. There are other holy things that are not only holy but also joyful.

I hope that helps. If it doesn’t, please ignore it.

Well, I did not start this thread to go to this place, but I might as well.
From first date to wedding date was a just over 7 months. 3 months from first date to engagement. We were both in our mid 20’s. I was absolutely certain I was in love. Now at 50, I fully realize it was not love, it was the infatuation or what ever you want to call it during the initial phases of a relationship. It is pretty normal, from what I hear and see.
I was Catholic, my spouse was not. There was a certain degree of “pressure” during our dating for marriage from my spouse’ side. I remember at the time thinking it was all normal stuff.
I could not have been more wrong.
The only person to ever say anything to me about whether or not I knew what I was getting into was the RE Director who did the marriage prep- an accelerated version to accommodate an earlier wedding date-(spouse’s idea.) She asked me: " Are you sure you know what you are getting into???" The problem is, she asked me about 4 hours before the ceremony. (there had been a blow up the day before at rehearsal and she was addressing the blow up.) I’ve relived that question a million times since that day… I should’ve ran right then and there. And never looked back. I only wished I had the wisdom I have now back then. For that matter, I wish I had had the wisdom I had 6 months after the wedding!!!

No matter. What is done is done. Lot’s of people “close” to me told me after the fact they worried it was a mistake- that was rushing into things…

In the end though it was my decision. I own it. I always have, and I always will. It was a poor, poor choice. But I made it. And now I have to live with the consequences. And the mind games.

I brought it all on myself.

 

[Minion_w_a_drum]

I must be missing something. In your second sentence you write that “they then get a civil divorce,” but in the second paragraph you write “the couple never gets divorced.” Can you please reconcile these for me? Are you presenting an alternate hypothetical? (If so, I recommend inserting the word “instead” somewhere.)

Yes, you are correct. The first paragraph was a hypothetical. The second paragraph is the alternative to the first hypothetical.
Rather than typing “instead” I typed “Okay, let’s say they never get divorced.”

I apologize for the confusion.

 

[filiusdextris]

Well, I did not start this thread to go to this place, but I might as well.
From first date to wedding date was a just over 7 months. 3 months from first date to engagement. We were both in our mid 20’s. I was absolutely certain I was in love. Now at 50, I fully realize it was not love, it was the infatuation or what ever you want to call it during the initial phases of a relationship. It is pretty normal, from what I hear and see.
I was Catholic, my spouse was not. There was a certain degree of “pressure” during our dating for marriage from my spouse’ side. I remember at the time thinking it was all normal stuff.
I could not have been more wrong.
The only person to ever say anything to me about whether or not I knew what I was getting into was the RE Director who did the marriage prep- an accelerated version to accommodate an earlier wedding date-(spouse’s idea.) She asked me: " Are you sure you know what you are getting into???" The problem is, she asked me about 4 hours before the ceremony. (there had been a blow up the day before at rehearsal and she was addressing the blow up.) I’ve relived that question a million times since that day… I should’ve ran right then and there. And never looked back. I only wished I had the wisdom I have now back then. For that matter, I wish I had had the wisdom I had 6 months after the wedding!!!

No matter. What is done is done. Lot’s of people “close” to me told me after the fact they worried it was a mistake- that was rushing into things…

In the end though it was my decision. I own it. I always have, and I always will. It was a poor, poor choice. But I made it. And now I have to live with the consequences. And the mind games.

I brought it all on myself.

Love (eros) is probably one key point as to whether or not marriage is a good idea or not, but unless I’m mistaken, it may not be the most relevant point as to whether a marriage is valid or not. There have probably been more valid marriages (mostly arranged ones) since the beginning of time without initial spousal love (eros) than with such love. You kind of hint at this yourself in this reply.

The more important question, rather, may be whether you and your spouse fully understood what marriage entails with its components of exclusivity, indissolubility, and fruitfulness under God’s providence.

 

[Vico]

This is something I’ve wondered for a long time.
I’ll use a hypothetical, which is very common, to pose my question.
2 people get married in the Catholic Church. They then get a civil divorce. One party then petitions for an annulment, or nullity, and it is granted. This nullity states that the first marriage was never valid, and thus the 2 people were never considered married according to the church. Both parties are now free to marry in the Catholic Church.

Okay, let’s say the couple never gets divorced. Ever. Does that mean they actually lived in mortal sin from the time they said “I do” until one party died? While they “believed” they were married, and while everyone looked at them and “thought” they were married. The fact remains, if they applied for an annulment it would get invalidated.
Even if one party “believed” they were married and the other did not, that is grounds to invalidate the marriage. So their marriage is nothing but a ruse. It doesn’t seem right. I would hardly think God would hold it against them. But I do wonder how he views it.

The couple was “considered married according to the church”. The annulment is a judgment determining that a marriage was invalidly contracted.

There is the objective sin and the subjective culpability for sin that are involved in an answer. Q." Does that mean they actually lived in mortal sin from the time they said “I do” until one party died?" A. No, it is not known; to determine mortal sin requires subjective knowledge and we only know the objective.

 

[filiusdextris]

Okay, let’s say the couple never gets divorced. Ever. Does that mean they actually lived in mortal sin from the time they said “I do” until one party died? While they “believed” they were married, and while everyone looked at them and “thought” they were married. The fact remains, if they applied for an annulment it would get invalidated.
Even if one party “believed” they were married and the other did not, that is grounds to invalidate the marriage. So their marriage is nothing but a ruse. It doesn’t seem right. I would hardly think God would hold it against them. But I do wonder how he views it.

Ok, now that I understand your original question, I’ll hazard a reply. While this would not have been, perhaps, a marriage in God’s eyes, it may be ignoring the “keys” problem.
Matthew 16:19:

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Church recognizes and presumes the marriage as valid until proven otherwise. Jesus is the head of the Church but he gave Peter and his successors the power of the keys. If the Church has not loosed the marriage, it (and you) will still be bound. Why did Jesus do that? I haven’t the foggiest, but it’s front-and-center in Scripture.

Not to encourage sin or anything, but God’s mercy knows no bounds, so that only covers his ordinary mercy. Theoretically, can God have mercy on those who violate his Church’s witness? Abundantly, yes! But it would be foolish and presumptive (sinful) to try and do so. To the extent that this may apply to you, try your utmost to follow the path laid out by the Church, and to the extent you are held back (even when seemingly unfairly), try to “die” to Jesus. If the new relationship is first and foremost under God, the new would-be spouse will understand that it won’t happen if the Church says “no,” and you want to honor that decision (which you should). Hopefully, the Church will recognize what you know in your heart is the way you know God really sees it. Just remember, the Church must start with the presumption that the first marriage was valid, and that the evidence you present must overcome that presumption for the Church to change it. And that this process is a good thing.

It sounds like you have a hard cross; I will pray for you.

 

[Minion_w_a_drum]

Love (eros) is probably one key point as to whether or not marriage is a good idea or not, but unless I’m mistaken, it may not be the most relevant point as to whether a marriage is valid or not. There have probably been more valid marriages (mostly arranged ones) since the beginning of time without initial spousal love (eros) than with such love. You kind of hint at this yourself in this reply.

The more important question, rather, may be whether you and your spouse fully understood what marriage entails with its components of exclusivity, indissolubility, and fruitfulness under God’s providence.

I may be way off base with this comment, but I fully believe love between 2 people before the ceremony is absolutely paramount for a valid marriage. You and/or the church may disagree, but I believe this completely.
Secondly, while arranged marriages that were “valid” are great in number, arranged marriages would not last today. they would in large part end in civil divorce. They may be “valid”, but they also would end civilly. And the goal should be to stop civil divorce- not merely rule on the validity of the marriage. The ruling of the validity of the marriage does absolutely nothing concerning the damage and carnage that comes with a divorce. It merely allows (or doesn’t allow) the 2 people to marry. Just because arranged marriages have a long track record of being valid (I question this by the way) that does not mean in the least that they should be practiced today. In fact, they should NOT be allowed because, today, they will most certainly end in divorce.
As for your last question, I can say this with certainty: My spouse and I had vastly different views on marriage. And I can also say with equal certainty that my spouse had no idea of what a Catholic marriage was to be. If my spouse would’ve known (or even on the off chance my spouse did know) there is no way on this earth my spouse would’ve agreed to those terms. My spouse may have said it for the sake of getting married, but Catholicism and the Catholic view and idea of marriage goes against the very make up of my spouse.

Or at least this is my opinion…

 

[filiusdextris]

I may be way off base with this comment, but I fully believe love between 2 people before the ceremony is absolutely paramount for a valid marriage. You and/or the church may disagree, but I believe this completely.

Careful, that would seem disrespectful to many of our ancestors - yours and mine - who likely went through such marriages.

Secondly, while arranged marriages that were “valid” are great in number, arranged marriages would not last today. they would in large part end in civil divorce.

You might mean something else by “valid” since you use it in scare quotes, but I use the term in the sense used by the Church, that the marriages are real, that God truly joined two souls in one flesh. Contrary to what you state, there are likely millions of marriages around the world, even currently, that are arranged. They may not be sacramental marriages in the Church, but they are often valid natural marriages that never sniff a divorce court and will likely lead to many further generations.

They may be “valid”, but they also would end civilly. And the goal should be to stop civil divorce- not merely rule on the validity of the marriage.

The Church should never have as a goal what requires, as guesswork, determining what rules some civil entity will adopt. In point of fact, the Church goes far to encourage and recognize love as a key component to a successful marriage. But it stops short of saying it is an absolute requirement. If it’s not an absolute requirement, it can’t be the #1 focus in an annulment inquiry, which is all I stated above. The real focus, to reiterate, is to examine the intentions of the people making their vows.

The ruling of the validity of the marriage does absolutely nothing concerning the damage and carnage that comes with a divorce. It merely allows (or doesn’t allow) the 2 people to marry. Just because arranged marriages have a long track record of being valid (I question this by the way) that does not mean in the least that they should be practiced today. In fact, they should NOT be allowed because, today, they will most certainly end in divorce.

As noted, we appear to disagree, inasmuch as your stance appears too narrowly focused on Western civilization, when other cultures that practice arranged marriages can clearly have valid marriages too.

As for your last question, I can say this with certainty: My spouse and I had vastly different views on marriage. And I can also say with equal certainty that my spouse had no idea of what a Catholic marriage was to be. If my spouse would’ve known (or even on the off chance my spouse did know) there is no way on this earth my spouse would’ve agreed to those terms. My spouse may have said it for the sake of getting married, but Catholicism and the Catholic view and idea of marriage goes against the very make up of my spouse.

Because of this, I think you likely have a strong case. Hopefully, you will be able to present it to the competent authorities.

 

[Minion_w_a_drum]

Careful, that would seem disrespectful to many of our ancestors - yours and mine - who likely went through such marriages.
You might mean something else by “valid” since you use it in scare quotes, but I use the term in the sense used by the Church, that the marriages are real, that God truly joined two souls in one flesh. Contrary to what you state, there are likely millions of marriages around the world, even currently, that are arranged. They may not be sacramental marriages in the Church, but they are often valid natural marriages that never sniff a divorce court and will likely lead to many further generations.

I am not a very intelligent person when it comes to Church doctrine and such, but I do believe that one of the grounds of an invalid marriage is whether or not each person came of their own free will to the alter to be joined in marriage. Maybe I just don’ know what an arranged marriage is. My idea is 1 or 2 sets of parents pick out who their children will marry and that is it. IF this is what an arranged marriage is, these types of marriages will end in divorce in the United States- without question. You may not like it, and you may find it disrespectful, but you cannot argue that it won’t happen. In the world of no fault divorce, I believe that love is absolutely necessary for a valid marriage. If the Church disagrees, I believe my thoughts of leaving the Church are spot on. For anyone who has lived through a divorce, common sense tells you that great effort should be taken to avoid it. If the church wants to say " well I can prove it as a valid marriage so I feel no shame nor guilt nor accountability for what happened to the 2 people and their children" well that is flat evil and wrong. And it would be time for me to cut ties with this church.
The Church should never have as a goal what requires, as guesswork, determining what rules some civil entity will adopt. In point of fact, the Church goes far to encourage and recognize love as a key component to a successful marriage. But it stops short of saying it is an absolute requirement. If it’s not an absolute requirement, it can’t be the #1 focus in an annulment inquiry, which is all I stated above. The real focus, to reiterate, is to examine the intentions of the people making their vows.
I guess I don’t understand that if love is not present, how can anyone believe there is a chance of that marriage succeeding? I simply can’t imagine 2 people in the United States who don’t love each other going out and getting married with the intent of staying together until death. I simply cannot wrap my head around that thinking. Is this what you are saying? That 2 people don’t need to love each other to be validly married? Why would they intend to stay together, if not for love??
Again, the eradication of civil divorce needs to be the goal and the church needs to do their part in eradicating it. IF the church doesn’t see it this way and wants to say “we can prove they were validly married, it’s too bad they civilly divorced!” again it’s time I cut bait. It goes against what I believe is right and wrong.

As noted, we appear to disagree, inasmuch as your stance appears too narrowly focused on Western civilization, when other cultures that practice arranged marriages can clearly have valid marriages too.
I am speaking from a stand point of the United States, as that is where I was born and always have lived, You may want to check the civil divorce laws in those countries that have arranged marriages. I would be willing to bet they do not have no fault divorce in those countries. We do have no fault divorce. And the fact that we live in a country that has no fault divorce, I believe the church needs to take a stand to insure that the marriages they perform have a reasonable shot at surviving in this culture. The carnage of divorce needs to be avoided.

Because of this, I think you likely have a strong case. Hopefully, you will be able to present it to the competent authorities.

The verdict is in. My fate has been decided. I got an affirmative decision in first instance and a negative decision in second instance. Simply put, I am a married man. And it only took 3 years.
Now on the bright side of things, I am about 10 months away from my silver wedding anniversary. I think I’ll go to an all inclusive resort in the Bahamas to celebrate, after all, 25 years of marriage is quite the accomplishment.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is something I’ve wondered for a long time.
I’ll use a hypothetical, which is very common, to pose my question.
2 people get married in the Catholic Church. They then get a civil divorce. One party then petitions for an annulment, or nullity, and it is granted. This nullity states that the first marriage was never valid, and thus the 2 people were never considered married according to the church. Both parties are now free to marry in the Catholic Church.

Okay, let’s say the couple never gets divorced. Ever. Does that mean they actually lived in mortal sin from the time they said “I do” until one party died? While they “believed” they were married, and while everyone looked at them and “thought” they were married. The fact remains, if they applied for an annulment it would get invalidated.
Even if one party “believed” they were married and the other did not, that is grounds to invalidate the marriage. So their marriage is nothing but a ruse. It doesn’t seem right. I would hardly think God would hold it against them. But I do wonder how he views it.

You are hitting on a point I have discussed on this forum before. One cannot find out if thier marriage was really a marriage unless the church gets a decree from the state. Imagine that. The church bows to the state to investigate one of its sacraments. Given that many annulments are granted. One can also assume that many marriages are invalid but the people can never know unless they divorce… The state is something the church needs to “divorce” itself from.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is something I’ve wondered for a long time.
I’ll use a hypothetical, which is very common, to pose my question.
2 people get married in the Catholic Church. They then get a civil divorce. One party then petitions for an annulment, or nullity, and it is granted. This nullity states that the first marriage was never valid, and thus the 2 people were never considered married according to the church. Both parties are now free to marry in the Catholic Church.

Okay, let’s say the couple never gets divorced. Ever. Does that mean they actually lived in mortal sin from the time they said “I do” until one party died? While they “believed” they were married, and while everyone looked at them and “thought” they were married. The fact remains, if they applied for an annulment it would get invalidated.
Even if one party “believed” they were married and the other did not, that is grounds to invalidate the marriage. So their marriage is nothing but a ruse. It doesn’t seem right. I would hardly think God would hold it against them. But I do wonder how he views it.

No it doesn’t mean that at all. They operated in the understanding it was valid. It was a natural marriage but not a sacramental marriage.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Also, even if the church held the invalid marriage prior was some sort of grave matter state of fornication (they don’t at all!) but even if they did, in order for it to be mortal sin you would need full knowledge. Something that could never be had if you thought you were married.

 

[filiusdextris]

One cannot find out if [one’s] marriage was really a marriage unless the church gets a decree from the state.

This is not quite accurate. It is only a current practice to require a civil divorce, but this rule could be overturned and even reversed if desirable. A quick, good reason as to why the current general rule exists can be found here. The canon lawyer referenced remarks that the rule is lamentable. I agree.