Valid vs. invalid marriage

[1ke]

The OP is a Candidate for Full Communion in the Catholic Church.

Yep.

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.

Which it has already done.

Her current marriage must be convalidated before she is fully initiated.

This is **not **correct. The finding of nullity of her first marriage means her current marriage IS valid.

Convalidation applies to those in invalid marriages. She is NOT in an invalid marriage.

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.

Yes, canon law does apply to every diocese. But, the problem is that there is a misapplication of it going on here (and not by me).

 

[1ke]

My replies are in red font

Embedding your reply within quotes of others makes it very difficult to reply. I would encourage you to use the quotes differently.

From Post #1 on this thread:

There are five pages to this thread. In subsequent posts, the OP indicates that she has already received a determination on her first marriage-- it was INVALID.

you and H2 would prepare for marrige.

NO. She and her husband ARE validly married.

The convalidation uses the regular Marriage Rite.

which does not apply to already married people.

It does not “automatically” become valid if/when the first marriage is found to be invalid.

No, it does not “become” automatically valid. It ALREADY IS valid.

Since there’s been no marriage ceremony between her and H2 in the eyes of the Church,

This is NOT correct, as has already been stated (with appropriate canon law citations) ad nauseum.

She certainly did have a valid marriage ceremony in the eyes of the Church.

a convalidation Rite (a marriage) would have to happen, for them to be “valid.”

Nope. Nope. Nope.

I haven’t read anything to indicate that the OP’s deacon is confused.

Since he is under the impression she requires a convalidation, yes he is confused. Because she doesn’t.

You have some basic misunderstandings about the process.

No, I’m crystal clear on this point.

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.

No, that is not correct. Your statement regarding a Catholic is correct. Your statement regarding non-Catholics is NOT.

You are pulling something out of cotext and misinterpreting the guideline for which you provided a link.

I am not pulling out of context or misinterpreting anything. But, other posters have provided better links and canon law references. So, if you don’t like this link, fine, but it does not change the answer in any way.

 

[quiet52]

1ke, I have spent too much time already responding to this thread, but I care about readers being misinformed. I think that you have either confused facts or are misinformed about what the Church requires. Before you continue to argue your repeated stance about the OP not needing a convalidation, I ask you to become better informed. So let’s start over.

**#1. The OP, who wishes to participate in the RCIA process and to be received into the Catholic Church, is currently in an irregular marriage. ** It is not valid because she was not free to marry her current husband to begin with. She cannot validly say “I do” to a second husband while still canonically being married to her first husband. According to the Code of Canon Law, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, a prior bond is an impediment to marriage. Being Catholic or non-Catholic is irrelevant. The Church cannot recognize her current marriage as canonically valid because they do not have a legitimate bond. Please stop stating that her current marriage is valid.

**#2. The OP has properly petitioned her Marriage Tribunal for a declaration of nullity for her first marriage. ** She has attempted to provide evidence that there was a defect of consent. Contrary to what you have written, there has been no decision as to the validity or non-validity of the OP’s first marriage.

**#3. The OP cannot be received into the Catholic Church if she remains in an invalid marriage. ** She would first need a declaration from the Tribunal that her first marriage was invalid. Her second marriage will remain invalid until it is convalidated, or “made valid”, by the rite of marriage.

Nowhere in any official Catholic document or instruction will you read that once the Church rules that a prior marriage was invalid, the current marriage automatically becomes valid, without any ecclesial action. It simply doesn’t work that way. I think you may be confusing the OP’s situation with new Catholics without prior marriages. Their current marriages are presumed to be valid, so to convalidate their marriages would be inappropriate.

From the OP in posts earlier in this thread:

I am not now Catholic. I will begin RCIA this September. In the mean time, I am in the process of seeking a declaration of nullity for my prior marriage. My case has been accepted by my local diocese.

I do understand that all this depends on the tribunal’s decision. In fact, I cannot be confirmed unless I receive a declaration of nullity for my first marriage because I have remarried and that marriage would not be valid unless the first marriage is found to be null.

So once I am confirmed, then I must be married in Catholic form (have my marriage convalidated) or else my marriage is invalid.

Her deacon, pastor and diocese are following the appropriate canonical procedures – but you have criticized them.

Many dioceses do not post their marriage norms and guidelines on their websites, but some do. With regard to prior marriages, what the Church requires is consistent from diocese to diocese.

RCIA: Those people who present themselves for catechesis with a view towards becoming Catholic often bring with them complicated marital situations that may prevent them from not only marriage in the Catholic Church, but the reception of the Sacraments of Initiation.

Anyone who is divorced and remarried (Catholic or non-Catholic) without a decree of nullity issued by the Church must have their situation investigated through the annulment process. While people in irregular marriages are impeded from completing initiation, they can certainly participate in the Period of Pre-Catechumenate, the Rite of Acceptance and the subsequent period of the Catechumenate, but they cannot be accepted as Elect (i.e. be admitted to the Rite of the Elect) and/or approach the sacraments until their impediment is removed. [from page 4, Pastoral Instruction and Policy on Marriage

, Diocese of Phoenix -
[diocese-tribunal.org]](diocese-tribunal.org])

Divorce and remarriage is not permissible, as commanded by Jesus Christ in the Gospel (Matthew 19:1-12). However, an annulment is a statement that the bond of marriage was never formed. To say it an-other way, the Catholic Church does not annul marriages like civil authorities do, but declares that a marriage was never valid from the time of consent. Divorce purports to break a valid bond. An annulment states that no valid bond ever came into existence. [from page 21]

Convalidation of an irregular marriage of one wishing to become a catechumen or candidate must take place prior to the beginning of the RCIA process. [page 21, Diocese of Hartford - Doing Bridal Esthetics]

One may not be admitted to the order of catechumens or as a candidate for full communion if he/she is in an invalid marital union. Potential catechumens and candidates must be informed of this situation from the outset. No date for reception of sacraments may be set until the marriage is regularized. [Diocese of Colorado Springs - http://www.diocs.org/Portals/1/Documents/TCE/RCIA Guidelines 2010.pdf]

[to be continued]

 

[quiet52]

A typical reminder memo from a diocese to pastors and RCIA leaders:

Any candidate/catechumen being brought into the Church, if living in a conjugal relationship, must be in a presumably valid marital union according to the laws of the Catholic Church… Any marriage of a candidate/catechumen requiring convalidation should be convalidated prior to bringing the person into the Church. An exception may arise with Privilege cases… Any convalidation must be preceded by the appropriate marriage preparation as required by the parish and Diocese. And the parties must be properly instructed so they can fully understand that they are making a
new act of consent in order to marry. [cathdal.org/files/Marriage_Nullity-RCIA.pdf]](https://www.cathdal.org/files/Marriage_Nullity-RCIA.pdf])

The convalidation of an irregular marriage should normally be completed before the sacraments of initiation are celebrated. One cannot enter into the full sacramental life of the Church unless one is completely free to receive the sacraments. It is pastorally advisable to convalidate the marriage as early in the process as possible except in cases involving the Pauline Privilege or papal dissolution in Favor of the Faith. In these cases, consult the archdiocesan tribunal for further information. [Office of Worship]](Office of Worship])

archindy.org/worship/rcia-faq.html#f:

archgh.org/default/pastoralcare/(F)%20Baptism.pdf (See page 4 and page 26)

dioceseoftrenton.org/document.doc?id=280 pg. 35

rcda.org/Offices/prayer_and_worship/PDF/RCIA%20Handbook.pdf - RCIA Handbook:A Guide to the Most Frequently Asked Questions (Diocese of Albany)

Praying for the OP.

 

[quiet52]

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

Canon experts have made serious errors in many dioceses, mine included in past years.
The poster who claims he is a canon lawyer is incorrect about the OP’s current marriage automatically becoming valid if her first marriage is found to be invalid.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The problem in understanding this is that you are conflating Divine Law and Church Law. Divine Law is binding on everyone; Church Law is binding only on Catholics.

#1. The OP, who wishes to participate in the RCIA process and to be received into the Catholic Church, is currently in an irregular marriage. It is not valid because she was not free to marry her current husband to begin with. She cannot validly say “I do” to a second husband while still canonically being married to her first husband. According to the Code of Canon Law, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, a prior bond is an impediment to marriage. Being Catholic or non-Catholic is irrelevant. The Church cannot recognize her current marriage as canonically valid because they do not have a legitimate bond. Please stop stating that her current marriage is valid.

A person is or is not married; there is no in between. If the Tribunal issues a decree of nullity for the first marriage, the Church is in fact assertively declaring that the OP was free to marry. The Church does not state that an invalid marriage attempt by a non-Catholic parties is an impediment to a subsequent (valid) marriage. It’s different for Catholics, obviously, since Catholic are also bound by Church Law requirements.

Your use of “canonically” in the cited paragraph is specifically referring to Church Law requirements for Catholics, not Divine Law requirements.

#3. The OP cannot be received into the Catholic Church if she remains in an invalid marriage. She would first need a declaration from the Tribunal that her first marriage was invalid. Her second marriage will remain invalid until it is convalidated, or “made valid”, by the rite of marriage.

Actually, she can be received into the Church with the appropriate guidance in her current situation. Some are received into the Church under these circumstances, and some of these people are right here on this very forum.

With regard to the second part of the paragraph, you have to be careful with your wording. You are asserting her marriage is invalid; that is incorrect, and that is not how the Church views the situation. The first marriage is presumed valid, which implies the second marriage is presumed invalid. It is not absolutely invalid as you are implying. If the first marriage is declared invalid, the second marriage is then presumed valid for non-Catholics.

FWIW, I went through several of your sources, and haven’t found anything that supports your position. While it do see irregular marriages mentioned, it doesn’t get into the details of what an irregular marriage is, nor all the gory details of what is involved.

You should really read up on the matter further, since it appears you don’t understand the difference between Church Law and Divine Law, and consequently the difference between marriages that involve Catholics and those that don’t.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Here’s an applicable answer in the Ask and Apologist section:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=694158

 

[SerraSemper]

Canon experts have made serious errors in many dioceses, mine included in past years.
The poster who claims he is a canon lawyer is incorrect about the OP’s current marriage automatically becoming valid if her first marriage is found to be invalid.

Well, if you’re referring to me, I am not a man. I am a canon lawyer trained at Rome with professors from the Rota. Further, I am a Bride of Christ and take my profession of being a canon lawyer seriously as it deals with the salvation of souls - and my own. Nothing you quoted proves your point and as another person has indicated, there are differences between Divine law and merely ecclesiastical. I would suggest that before you post saying that someone who has a doctoral level education in canon law is wrong, you might want to consider that they could actually be right. Particularly if they give you the link to another canonist held in high regard by Pope Benedict XVI who gives the pertinent canons applicable to the OP’s case. People who want to know more about the Church’s teaching on marriage are ill-served by those who respond as if they are experts in the field but do not know the theology and law of marriage sufficiently to give correct answers to the more obscure situations that general website materials do not typically cover.

 

[SerraSemper]

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.

Just a quick note here… This is a good post but with one incorrect detail. A Tribunal never determines that a marriage is valid, any more than the Church declares people to be infallibly in Hell. In a matrimonial cause, the Tribunal may only render one of two possible decisions. Either the presumption of validity is overturned, or insufficient evidence was provided and the presumption of validity stands.

 

[dans0622]

Canon experts have made serious errors in many dioceses, mine included in past years.
The poster who claims he is a canon lawyer is incorrect about the OP’s current marriage automatically becoming valid if her first marriage is found to be invalid.

Hello,

Yes, they can certainly make errors. The canon lawyer to whom you refer did not say that the marriage “automatically (becomes) valid…” She said it would “automatically be considered valid.” While I might quibble with that phrasing (see below), that is not the same as what you said she said.

I cannot really provide handy links or text to support the conclusion of “SerraSemper”, “1ke” and Dr. Peters. But, I can refer to the 2001 edition of the Canon Law Society of America’s “Roman Replies and Advisory Opinions,” pp. 114-118, for two more opinions in line with Dr. Peters, et al. Also, p. 1287 of the CLSA’s “Green Commentary” has a brief word about this issue.

I would only ask: if the OP’s first marriage is declared invalid–something which hasn’t happened yet, I agree–how could she have ever been impeded by the bond of that marriage? It seems to me that if the first marriage is declared invalid, there was no marriage, ever. There was no bond, ever. There was no impediment, ever. The OP was free to marry “again” and did so according to the law to which she was subject (including divine law, by the way). If we follow your line of reasoning, it seems we have to conclude that a declaration of nullity **makes **a person free to marry, from the moment it is declared. This pernicious notion, as I called it earlier, has to be eliminated.

What follows is the aforementioned “quibble.” Maybe it is not really a quibble–I don’t disagree with the substance of what SerraSemper said. Let’s just call it my attempt at contextulization. It is not of great value but since I wrote it, I won’t delete it…

A presumption of validity arises when a person exchanges marital consent in accord with whatever “form” is required of him/her. For non-Catholics and non-Orthodox, that “form” is whatever the civil law requires. In the scenario presented in this thread, you might say there are two competing presumptions of validity for the OP’s two exchanges of consent. This is from a strictly legal perspective, reflecting how a tribunal deals with those with multiple marriages or those who marry someone who was previously married. In the “real world” we automatically say “Hey, you were married before. You can’t get married again.” That is true and reflects the totality of c. 1085. But, if somebody goes ahead and marries a second time in accord with appropriate form, then it is discovered that the first marriage was actually invalid, the only conclusion we can come to is to continue to presume that the “second marriage” is, and always was, valid. There are no longer any competing presumptions–only one remains and it is now more solid. That is how I try to make legal sense of the convoluted messes people get themselves into, and ask us in the Tribunal to sort out…

Dan

 

[SerraSemper]

Hello,

Yes, they can certainly make errors. The canon lawyer to whom you refer did not say that the marriage “automatically (becomes) valid…” She said it would “automatically be considered valid.” While I might quibble with that phrasing (see below), that is not the same as what you said she said.

I cannot really provide handy links or text to support the conclusion of “SerraSemper”, “1ke” and Dr. Peters. But, I can refer to the 2001 edition of the Canon Law Society of America’s “Roman Replies and Advisory Opinions,” pp. 114-118, for two more opinions in line with Dr. Peters, et al. Also, p. 1287 of the CLSA’s “Green Commentary” has a brief word about this issue.

I would only ask: if the OP’s first marriage is declared invalid–something which hasn’t happened yet, I agree–how could she have ever been impeded by the bond of that marriage? It seems to me that if the first marriage is declared invalid, there was no marriage, ever. There was no bond, ever. There was no impediment, ever. The OP was free to marry “again” and did so according to the law to which she was subject (including divine law, by the way). If we follow your line of reasoning, it seems we have to conclude that a declaration of nullity **makes **a person free to marry, from the moment it is declared. This pernicious notion, as I called it earlier, has to be eliminated.

What follows is the aforementioned “quibble.” Maybe it is not really a quibble–I don’t disagree with the substance of what SerraSemper said. Let’s just call it my attempt at contextulization. It is not of great value but since I wrote it, I won’t delete it…

A presumption of validity arises when a person exchanges marital consent in accord with whatever “form” is required of him/her. For non-Catholics and non-Orthodox, that “form” is whatever the civil law requires. In the scenario presented in this thread, you might say there are two competing presumptions of validity for the OP’s two exchanges of consent. This is from a strictly legal perspective, reflecting how a tribunal deals with those with multiple marriages or those who marry someone who was previously married. In the “real world” we automatically say “Hey, you were married before. You can’t get married again.” That is true and reflects the totality of c. 1085. But, if somebody goes ahead and marries a second time in accord with appropriate form, then it is discovered that the first marriage was actually invalid, the only conclusion we can come to is to continue to presume that the “second marriage” is, and always was, valid. There are no longer any competing presumptions–only one remains and it is now more solid. That is how I try to make legal sense of the convoluted messes people get themselves into, and ask us in the Tribunal to sort out…

Dan

Agreed in substance with this post. People do come with very convoluted situations and that is why we spend many years in post Masters in Theology degree graduate studies for canon law so we untangle them. Some situations are truly bizarre and memorable and force one to hit the books and class notes for the applicable norms- things you thought would be forever relegated to a dusty bookshelf. And you beat me to my next post, which was to clarify that I was being misquoted by quiet52. Thanks. Saves some typing.

 

[dans0622]

I will conclude my participation here with the following:

“If someone accuses many marriages successively celebrated
as being null, this manner of proceeding is to be
used: Before anything else, inquiry is to be made regarding
the nullity of the marriage first entered: when this
nullity is legitimately proved, the matrimony which next
followed this is to be presumed valid: if indeed later the
nullity of the second marriage has been proven, then the
next following marriage is to be presumed valid, and so
in turn.”

This is from a decree of the Apostolic Signatura, July 1987, in the CLSA’s 1987 Roman Replies and Advisory Opinions, pp. 58-61. I added the italics to highlight what is pertinent to the scenario under consideration in this thread.

Dan

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Just a quick note here… This is a good post but with one incorrect detail. A Tribunal never determines that a marriage is valid, any more than the Church declares people to be infallibly in Hell. In a matrimonial cause, the Tribunal may only render one of two possible decisions. Either the presumption of validity is overturned, or insufficient evidence was provided and the presumption of validity stands.

Thanks for your clarification.

 

[DittosMommy]

Greetings, friends in Christ. I wanted to give an update on my case. I received a letter this week from the diocesan tribunal that I have been granted an affirmative decision in the First Instance for declaration of nullity of my former marriage (signed on March 10). My case has been sent to the court of second instance for final review. Please pray with me that the decision of the court of second instance be quick in coming (and be affirmative!). I was told a note was attached to my file so the court of second instance would know that I am waiting on its decision so I can be confirmed. My hope is to have a second affirmative decision by Holy Week so that I may receive the sacraments of initiation with the other catechumens at the Easter Vigil.

And I wanted also to offer some words of encouragement to anyone who reads this who is going through the process or is thinking about it. This process can be long. It can be painful, embarrassing and frustrating. But you need to do it. Keep your eyes on Christ and trust in Him. This process brought up a lot of old, buried pain, was embarrassing for me when others read the answers to my questionnaire (the questions are very personal in nature) and even more embarrassing and painful when I went to the tribunal office for my interview. But you know, I did not die from the embarrassment and I have been treated with the utmost care and respect throughout this entire process. Never once did I feel that I was being judged. This whole process has been healing for my soul and I look upon it as part of my preparation for receiving the sacraments. I look forward to going to my first confession, receiving absolution and then being baptized, confirmed and receiving the Holy Eucharist. God is merciful and forgiving and has shown me how patient I can be (by His grace) and has sent wonderful people into my life who offer love and encouragement, especially my sponsor. I truly have been blessed.

 

[popfly]

I have a question regarding communion and an invalid marriage. My young son and I are going through first communion classes so a lot of new rules have been brought to my attention but I am too embarrassed to ask this in our class.
I have always been worried about taking communion as I am divorced. Now I find out I can take communion just fine since I am not remarried. However, I learned I should not take communion as I was not married in the Catholic church. I was married in a non-denominational Christian ceremony as my husband was not Catholic.
Now I am not sure what to do. I don’t really think I can have my marriage convalidated as this is a blessing and the marriage does not exist any longer (in the eyes of the law). Does anyone have personal experience with this?

 

[thewanderer]

I have a question regarding communion and an invalid marriage. My young son and I are going through first communion classes so a lot of new rules have been brought to my attention but I am too embarrassed to ask this in our class.
I have always been worried about taking communion as I am divorced. Now I find out I can take communion just fine since I am not remarried. However, I learned I should not take communion as I was not married in the Catholic church. I was married in a non-denominational Christian ceremony as my husband was not Catholic.
Now I am not sure what to do. I don’t really think I can have my marriage convalidated as this is a blessing and the marriage does not exist any longer (in the eyes of the law). Does anyone have personal experience with this?

The only reason to not take communion is if you are in mortal sin. The reason those in an invalid marriage cannot receive communion is because of the fact that they are having sex without being validly married. If a person in an invalid marriage went to confession and abstained even they would be allowed to receive communion. All you need to do is go to confession and avoid mortal sins. I am so sorry you have been kept fro receiving communion for so long because of this misinformation!

 

[DittosMommy]

Today I received word that the Court of Second Instance has concurred with the first court and my Declaration of Nullity has been granted. Praise be to God! I will be receiving the Sacraments of Initiation next week at the Easter Vigil.Thank you, everyone, for your prayers and feedback. May God bless us all.

 

[1ke]

Today I received word that the Court of Second Instance has concurred with the first court and my Declaration of Nullity has been granted. Praise be to God! I will be receiving the Sacraments of Initiation next week at the Easter Vigil.Thank you, everyone, for your prayers and feedback. May God bless us all.

congratulations!

 

[dans0622]

Today I received word that the Court of Second Instance has concurred with the first court and my Declaration of Nullity has been granted. Praise be to God! I will be receiving the Sacraments of Initiation next week at the Easter Vigil.Thank you, everyone, for your prayers and feedback. May God bless us all.

Hello,

So, are you (still) being made to go through with a “convalidation?”

Dan

 

[DittosMommy]

No, I do not need to have a convalidation. After the investigation of my former marriage, the tribunal decreed that the marriage was invalid, so when I married my current husband, I was free to do so. Since neither one of us was Catholic at the time of the wedding, we were not required to be married in any Catholic form. Our marriage is presumed to be valid, just like my former marriage was until I provided evidence that it was not. My present marriage is presumed to be valid and since you cannot make valid what already is, convalidation is not needed. Please see the article by Dr. Edward Peters that SerraSempre referenced as he explains it very well.

My marriage is not sacramental since my husband has not been baptized. It is a natural marriage. I pray daily for his conversion and baptism.