Valid vs. invalid marriage

[quiet52]

This is not correct given the information provided. You are not Catholic, and if your first marriage is found to be invalid, your second marriage is automatically valid. In this case, you cannot have the second marriage convalidated, because it would already be valid. The fact that your husband is not baptized does not invalidate the marriage, it simply means it is “natural,” not “sacramental.”

Please see Post #5 in this thread.

When a first marriage is deemed to be invalid, the current marriage does not automatically become valid. It must be validated or convalidated.

This is from the marriage norms in my diocese:

Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults: Potential catechumens and those seeking to complete their initiation into Catholic Church that are invalidly married should have their marriages validated or convalidated prior to the celebration of the Rite of Acceptance into the Order of Catechumens or the Rite of Welcoming the Candidates. In cases where a declaration of marital nullity is needed, the person should be advised early in the process that initiation may need to be delayed.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

My understanding is that a Catholic could not validly enter into a second marriage whilst a putative first marriage existed. They would be required to wait until a decree of nullity was obtained and only then could they validly enter into a second marriage. Is this correct?

She’s not Catholic, so this does not apply.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

When a first marriage is deemed to be invalid, the current marriage does not automatically become valid. It must be validated or convalidated.

This is from the marriage norms in my diocese:

It should be noted that what you stated and the quote from you diocese are not the same.

Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults: Potential catechumens and those seeking to complete their initiation into Catholic Church that are invalidly married should have their marriages

“should” is not “must.”

However, I checked into the matter further, and apparently the bishop of a diocese has the authority to require convalidation in such cases, so maybe that is what is going on here.

 

[1ke]

I spoke with my parish priest and he told me that provided I receive a declaration of nullity, my current marriage will have to be convalidated once I am confirmed. The reason being is that my husband has never been baptized. We will also need to get permission from the bishop due to disparity of cult. My marriage will not be a sacramental marriage until such a time as my husband accepts Christ and is baptized. Thanks to everyone for their answers and I would ask for your prayers as I continue my journey to join the Catholic faith and prayers for my husband’s conversion. May God bless you.

Your priest is mistaken regarding convalidation and the need for a dispensation from disparity of cult. You are validly married to your current husband. You are not a Catholic, therefore Catholic form did not apply to you when you married. When you enter the Church, your marriage is still valid.

I suggest you talk to the Vicar General of your diocese.

 

[1ke]

When a first marriage is deemed to be invalid, the current marriage does not automatically become valid. It must be validated or convalidated.

That would be true if the OP or her spouse were a Catholic. Neither is a Catholic.

This is from the marriage norms in my diocese:

The OP is not in an invalid marriage.

 

[1ke]

However, I checked into the matter further, and apparently the bishop of a diocese has the authority to require convalidation in such cases, so maybe that is what is going on here.

That seems off to me. It is not possible to convalidate a valid marriage, therefore it is not something the bishop can have authority to require of a person entering the Church.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That seems off to me. It is not possible to convalidate a valid marriage, therefore it is not something the bishop can have authority to require of a person entering the Church.

It seems off to me also. My source of that information is via David Emery on the chnetwork. I haven’t had the opportunity to scan through all his references to verify this.

 

[SerraSemper]

Short answer to the OP: If you receive a declaration of invalidity for your case (not necessarily that of other posters’ on this thread), then you will NOT need a convalidation (wedding) ceremony. The reason is that your current marriage would automatically be considered valid. This is the case regardless of whether you are received into the Church or not by the time you receive a decision from the Tribunal.

For those of you who want a more wordy explanation, I’ll save my fingers and point you to a person appointed by the Pope to work for the Vatican court on marriage cases and his response to the same question.

 

[DittosMommy]

The problem is with baptism. In Edwards Peters post, both parties were baptized protestants:
Full Question

Two of my friends are taking instructions to come into the Church. They are getting conflicting opinions as to whether they will need to “convalidate” their marriage after they become Catholic. Both of them are baptized Protestants, and both were previously married to other Protestants before getting divorces and marrying each other. They have applied for annulments of their earlier marriages. Assuming both annulment petitions are granted, will they still need to have their marriage to each other blessed in the Church?

I was baptized in the Southern Baptist church. My husband is not baptized. If he had been, then our marriage would automatically be valid once my former marriage is declared null. But he has never been baptized so the marriage will have to be convalidated.

 

[SerraSemper]

The problem is not with baptism. Dr. Peters’ example remains the same because your current consort’s belief system allows for a civil marriage at the time of consent. Your belief system allowed for a civil marriage at the time of consent. Convalidation only concerns one or both parties who are Catholic at the time of the wedding. If you receive a declaration of nullity and if your current consort remains unbaptized, you will be in a valid natural marriage, not a valid sacramental marriage. If he should ever become baptized, it will automatically become a sacramental marriage. If you should consummate the marriage after he gets baptized, then it would be an indissoluble sacramental marriage.

And for what it’s worth, your parish priest is not the expert on who must have convalidations, it is your local Tribunal or any licensed canon lawyer like myself or Dr. Peters.

 

[1ke]

The problem is with baptism.

No, the problem is NOT with baptism or lack thereof.

I was baptized in the Southern Baptist church. My husband is not baptized.

That does not change anything. Two non-Catholics (baptized or not) marry validly when they marry each other civilly.

You and your spouse are VALIDLY married.

A convalidation makes a marriage valid. It cannot make your marriage valid, because it already IS valid.

If he had been, then our marriage would automatically be valid once my former marriage is declared null. But he has never been baptized so the marriage will have to be convalidated.

This is simply not true.

 

[LilyM]

She’s not Catholic, so this does not apply.

I understand specifically Catholic concepts not applying - eg marrying in a Catholic Church or permission from the bishop for disparity of cult. This goes to a much more essential requirement. Parties must be free to marry. A Catholic who is in even a putative marriage is not considered to be free to marry until said putative marriage is investigated and declared null. Why would a non-Catholic in a putative marriage not be in the same boat?

 

[1ke]

I understand specifically Catholic concepts not applying - eg marrying in a Catholic Church or permission from the bishop for disparity of cult. This goes to a much more essential requirement. Parties must be free to marry. A Catholic who is in even a putative marriage is not considered to be free to marry until said putative marriage is investigated and declared null. Why would a non-Catholic in a putative marriage not be in the same boat?

The first marriage has already been found to be null. That means the current marriage is valid.

 

[dans0622]

…

And for what it’s worth, your parish priest is not the expert on who must have convalidations, it is your local Tribunal or any licensed canon lawyer like myself or Dr. Peters.

Unfortunately, I know of canon lawyers who would give a different answer (perhaps only because they didn’t take the time to think through the answer…). There is a pernicious notion that a declaration of nullity makes a person free to marry. The use of the term “annulment” only cements that notion.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

I understand specifically Catholic concepts not applying - eg marrying in a Catholic Church or permission from the bishop for disparity of cult. This goes to a much more essential requirement. Parties must be free to marry. A Catholic who is in even a putative marriage is not considered to be free to marry until said putative marriage is investigated and declared null. Why would a non-Catholic in a putative marriage not be in the same boat?

Hello,

One who is in a putative marriage is in fact considered to be free to marry since a putative marriage is, by definition, invalid (c. 1061.3). It is illicit for such a person (if Catholic) to contract a subsequent marriage before the invalidity of the previous one is certainly and lawfully established (c. 1085.2). Note that the marriage is considered to be illicit, not invalid. A practical example is the case of a priest witnessing a marriage before a Party’s nullity trial has gone through the second instance–the first instance tribunal having said the first marriage was invalid. If the second instance, after the fact, ratifies the first instance decision, that second marriage is illicit but valid.

The Catholic Church would not put non-Catholics in the same boat since she is–these days, anyway–very hesitant to legislate for non-Catholics. It is possible that the Church could apply c. 1085.2 to everyone or all the baptized but that is not the case right now. That being said, I am sure the Church would prefer that civil governments would not allow citizens to divorce and remarry with impunity and without any concern whatever for the indissoluble nature of marriage.

Fundamentally, however, everyone is in the same boat–the subsequent marriage is presumptively valid.

Dan

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Two of my friends are taking instructions to come into the Church. They are getting conflicting opinions as to whether they will need to “convalidate” their marriage after they become Catholic. Both of them are baptized Protestants, and both were previously married to other Protestants before getting divorces and marrying each other. They have applied for annulments of their earlier marriages. Assuming both annulment petitions are granted, will they still need to have their marriage to each other blessed in the Church?

First, be careful with the wording of your last sentence. Having a marriage blessed, as you stated in your last sentence, is different from a convalidiation. A valid marriage can be blessed. An invalid marriage cannot, and must be convalidated. If the annulment is granted in your case, your current marriage is considered valid.

Second, the baptismal status of the parties plays no part in whether or not an invalid marriage needs to be convalidated. It can play a part is the unbaptized party is the one that was previously married (I won’t bore you with the details), but that is not applicable to your situation anyway.

 

[DittosMommy]

I was quoting Edward Peters. I did not use the term “have the marriage blessed.”

 

[DittosMommy]

I want to send a heartfelt “Thank you” to SerraSemper. I appreciate your response as a canon lawyer. If anyone would know the answer, you would. I have a Catholic friend at work and his parish priest is a canon lawyer. I was going to send him an email and ask him, but I got a letter from the tribunal and he was assigned as Defender of the Bond in my case so I decided that might not be the best course of action. I just did not want any appearance of any impropriety.

Thanks again and God Bless.

 

[quiet52]

My replies are in red font

From Post #1 on this thread:

I am confused and need some assistance. I am having a hard time understanding the difference between valid marriage and invalid marriage.

I was told the church considers all marriages valid unless proven otherwise, which is why I have to petition for a declaration of nullity from my first marriage. So assuming that my first marriage is found to be invalid, would that not then make my second marriage valid? If so, why do I have to have it convalidated? Neither of us were Catholic at the time of the wedding.

But I am being told by my deacon that I have to have my present marriage convalidated, otherwise it is not recognized as a valid marriage by the church and I would be still committing adultery.

[INDENT[COLOR=“Red”]]Ditto(name removed by moderator)my, all FIRST marriages by Catholics and non-Catholics are valid in the eyes COLOR=“Red”]of the Catholic Church, until a Catholic Tribunal determines otherwise.

you are still married to husband #1. Since you are not currently married to two men at once, you were not validly married to husband #2. If all goes well with the process, then the first marriage would be found to have a defect of consent by either or both of you at the time yoj married, and you and H2 would prepare for marrige. The convalidation uses the regular Marriage Rite.

Then the pastor has a resonsibilility to assure the two of you have a full understanding of what marriage means. amd that you have no major problems communicating, etc. The pastor might require you to attend a Marriage Encounter weekend or some other program with married couples in addition to informal meetings with him or the deacon. You should take the opportunity to learn about natural planning. All of this, in addition to apreparing for the sacraments of initiation. Piece of cake! Prayer will be essential throughout.
[/INDENT]

…… If your first marriage is found to be invalid, your second marriage is valid. Neither of you is Catholic, therefore a convalidation does not enter into the equation.

This is not correct. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the OP’s current marriage does not exist. She and husband #2 have never been married. It does not “automatically” become valid if/when the first marriage is found to be invalid. Since there’s been no marriage ceremony between her and H2 in the eyes of the Church, a convalidation Rite (a marriage) would have to happen, for them to be “valid.”

I suggest you talk to your pastor or the vicar general of your diocese.

• The Vicar General is not necessarily an expert in these matters, but she can call the Judicial Vicar or his staff if she has any questions.

A convalidation would be needed if your current spouse was a Catholic, because your current spouse would have been required to marry in the Catholic form. Perhaps the deacon is confused by this point.

*INDENT]I haven’t read anything to indicate that the OP’s deacon is confused. You have some basic misunderstandings about the process. Both Catholics with prior marriages, and non-Catholics who wish to become Catholic and who have prior marriages, must successfully go through the Tribunal Process and then convalidate their second marriage.[/INDENT]

See here, bottom of page 3:

dioceseofbmt.org/lifelong/content/resources/PreviousandorInvalidMarriages.pdf

• You are pulling something out of cotext and misinterpreting the guideline for which you provided a link.
• Please read from page 1:
• “…If a Tribunal process is necessary, in the Diocese of Beaumont, it must be granted before an individual celebrates the Rite of Election or the Rite of Calling the Candidate to Continuing Conversion and enters the period of Purification and Enlightenment.” (Diocese of Beaumont - RCIA Guidelines, p. 7)…

• The OP is a Candidate for Full Communion in the Catholic Church. In addition to her initiatory catechesis and other preparation, she cannot be received into the Church, be confirmed, or receive first Eucharist unless and until the Marriage Tribunal grants a decree of nullity. Her current marriage must be convalidated before she is fully initiated.

This applies to every diocese. Not just mine, not just Beaumont, but every diocese. If a pastor makes an exception, he is violating canon law.

=====​

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This is not correct. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the OP’s current marriage does not exist. She and husband #2 have never been married. It does not “automatically” become valid if/when the first marriage is found to be invalid. Since there’s been no marriage ceremony between her and H2 in the eyes of the Church, a convalidation Rite (a marriage) would have to happen, for them to be “valid.”

And this is not correct.

It is not correct to state that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned the second marriage does not exist. It is proper to state the Catholic Church presumes the first marriage to be valid.

You are putting the cart before the horse. One thing follows the other, and we have to start with the first marriage, not the second. If the first marriage is determined to be valid by the Tribunal, it follows that the second marriage is invalid. If the first marriage is determined to be invalid, the second marriage is presumed to be valid.

This is exactly why the Church examines ALL prior marriages these cases. If someone was married 4x previous, all four prior marriage are examined by the Tribunal. If what you stated was true, only the first marriage would need to be investigated and the other 3 ignored.

Besides, a canon lawyer has already spoken on the matter.