What constitutes a valid marriage in post-Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alessandro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alessandro

Guest
My cousin is engaged to marry a man who was once married (at the age of 19, when his girlfriend was pregnant) but is now divorced. Neither he nor his ex-wife were Catholic – nor even baptized Christians – at the time of their marriage.

My cousin’s fiance is now entering into the Catholic Church and will receive the sacraments of baptism, communion and confirmation next Easter.

Interestingly, they were informed that because he and his ex-wife had both not been baptized Catholics, their marriage was “considered valid” at the time, and therefore he will require an annulment prior to being able to marry my cousin in Church.

My question is: Did the rules regarding what constitutes a valid marriage change after Vatican II? I’m confused: Why should an annulment be required in this case? It wasn’t a sacramental marriage. And besides, how can the Church annul a marriage that it didn’t perform?

It seems to me that the rules regarding what is valid or invalid, sacramental or non-sacramental were a lot clearer prior to Vatican II. I thought the Catholic Church, as the One True Church, and possibly the Orthodox Church (which somehow retains the authority to convey sacraments, even though divorced from Peter), were the only ones with the authority to convey a true sacrament of marriage; and thus the only ones for which an annulment would be necessary.
 
The key is that the administers of marriage are not priests but rather the couple. To be honest though, I had thought that they needed to be baptized Christians. Oh well, I’ll take their word over mine.
 
40.png
alessandro:
My cousin is engaged to marry a man who was once married (at the age of 19, when his girlfriend was pregnant) but is now divorced. Neither he nor his ex-wife were Catholic – nor even baptized Christians – at the time of their marriage.

My cousin’s fiance is now entering into the Catholic Church and will receive the sacraments of baptism, communion and confirmation next Easter.

Interestingly, they were informed that because he and his ex-wife had both not been baptized Catholics, their marriage was “considered valid” at the time, and therefore he will require an annulment prior to being able to marry my cousin in Church.

My question is: Did the rules regarding what constitutes a valid marriage change after Vatican II? I’m confused: Why should an annulment be required in this case? It wasn’t a sacramental marriage. And besides, how can the Church annul a marriage that it didn’t perform?

It seems to me that the rules regarding what is valid or invalid, sacramental or non-sacramental were a lot clearer prior to Vatican II. I thought the Catholic Church, as the One True Church, and possibly the Orthodox Church (which somehow retains the authority to convey sacraments, even though divorced from Peter), were the only ones with the authority to convey a true sacrament of marriage; and thus the only ones for which an annulment would be necessary.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Chruch does recognize marriage between two non-Baptized persons as a valid natural Marriage. He will need to have the Marriage examined by a tribunal. My guess is that specific attention will be focused on the free consent because of the pregnency. I don’t believe the Pauline privilege applies here because he remains un-Baptized.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
The Catholic Chruch does recognize marriage between two non-Baptized persons as a valid natural Marriage.
Click to expand...
What about a marriage between, say, two Protestants; or between one Catholic and one Protestant; or between one Christian and one non-baptized person. Are these “valid, natural marriages,” recognized by the Church?
Br. Rich SFO:
I don’t believe the Pauline privilege applies here because he remains un-Baptized.
Click to expand...
What is the “Pauline privilege”? I am unfamiliar with that phrase.

Thanks!
 
40.png
alessandro:
What about a marriage between, say, two Protestants; or between one Catholic and one Protestant; or between one Christian and one non-baptized person. Are these “valid, natural marriages,” recognized by the Church?

What is the “Pauline privilege”? I am unfamiliar with that phrase.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Two Protestants could be a valid Sacramental Marriage.

A Protestant and a Catholic could be a valid Sacramental Marriage if all the necessary canonical requirments were met.

A Marriage between a Christian and a non-Baptized person could be a valid natural Marriage.

A Marriage between a Catholic and a non-Baptized person could be a valid natural Marriage if all the necessary canonical requirments were met.

The Pauline privilege is when a non-Baptized person in a natural Marriage with another non-Baptized person receives Baptism and wishes to marry a Baptized person and the spouse is not willing to receive Baptism or live in peace. The newly Baptized can contract a new marriage with a Baptized person in favor of the faith.
 
To be a little bit explicit for those not catching the technical terms:

*Validity *and *Sacramentality *are two different things.

A valid marriage is a valid marriage.

A valid marriage consisting of two baptized parties is a sacramental marriage.

Baptism is a prerequisite to every other sacrament.

As I understand it,
tee
 
Okay, so I can understand and accept the difference between a legally valid marriage and a sacramental marriage.

What I am not understanding is why an annulment is required for a legally valid but non-sacramental marriage. If two non-baptized are married by a justice of a peace or pseudo-religious (but non-sacramental) ceremony, the Church does not view that as the sacrament of marriage, correct? Therefore, for such a marriage, an equally secular divorce should be valid.

I thought the purpose of the annulment was to prove that the sacrament (which could only be received once in one’s lifetime) was never actually conferred; and thus, the person would be free to receive the sacrament with another person.

This is all so confusing! But interesting.
 
Where’s a Canon lawyer when you need one?

My understanding is that the Church would need to examine the original marriage at least to determine that the facts are correct; that is, that neither party was baptized at the time of the original marriage, and that there has been a divorce. It is not my understanding that a natural marriage, subsequently terminated by divorce would act as an impediment to a subsequent marriage per se (that is, would require a finding similar to a marriage between two baptized persons showing grounds for a declaration of nullity based on impediment), but this is towards the smaller end of decrees of nullity, and I could be wrong.
 
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Canon Lawyer
40.png
alessandro:
Okay, so I can understand and accept the difference between a legally valid marriage and a sacramental marriage.

What I am not understanding is why an annulment is required for a legally valid but non-sacramental marriage. If two non-baptized are married by a justice of a peace or pseudo-religious (but non-sacramental) ceremony, the Church does not view that as the sacrament of marriage, correct? Therefore, for such a marriage, an equally secular divorce should be valid.

I thought the purpose of the annulment was to prove that the sacrament (which could only be received once in one’s lifetime) was never actually conferred; and thus, the person would be free to receive the sacrament with another person.

This is all so confusing! But interesting.
Click to expand...
Can. 1085 §1 A person bound by the bond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
§2 Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty.
Click to expand...
NB the impediment derives from a previous marriage, not necessarily a sacramental marriage. And the impediment persists as long as the previous marriage is not shown to be invalid or dissolved.

A natural marriage may be dissolved by either the Pauline Privilege or Petrine Privilege, which (being Not A Canon Lawyer) I can never keep straight. :whacky: In any case, it requires more than merely a civil divorce.

(Also: The sacrament of marriage may be received more than once. Death dissolves the bond of both natural and sacramental marriages,)

tee
 
40.png
alessandro:
Okay, so I can understand and accept the difference between a legally valid marriage and a sacramental marriage.

What I am not understanding is why an annulment is required for a legally valid but non-sacramental marriage. If two non-baptized are married by a justice of a peace or pseudo-religious (but non-sacramental) ceremony, the Church does not view that as the sacrament of marriage, correct? Therefore, for such a marriage, an equally secular divorce should be valid.

I thought the purpose of the annulment was to prove that the sacrament (which could only be received once in one’s lifetime) was never actually conferred; and thus, the person would be free to receive the sacrament with another person.

This is all so confusing! But interesting.
Click to expand...
The Church has authority over ALL Marriage. Also Marriage as a Sacrament can be received more than once, with the death of the spouse.
 
The Catholic Church does not claim authority over ALL marriage, only all Christian marriage.
Every validly contracted marriage between two baptized Christians is a Sacrament.
Every sacramental marriage is a valid marriage, but not every valid marriage is a sacrament.
 
40.png
tjmiller:
The Catholic Church does not claim authority over ALL marriage, only all Christian marriage.
Every validly contracted marriage between two baptized Christians is a Sacrament.
Every sacramental marriage is a valid marriage, but not every valid marriage is a sacrament.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has authority to review any marriage even a natural marriage for validity.
 
Wow, thanks for all the great responses. This is intricate and heady stuff. I’ll have to read more about it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top