What is my Status from Civil Marriage?

[Abba]

I apologize for asking a not so simple question that may divert the topic. Please ignore. I will start a new thread to ask the question. Thank you.

It’s not obvious as to which general forum to ask in.

Well I placed it in this very forum:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=687749

 

[johndoe100]

I disagree. There is no reason to wait. A priest will be able to help the OP through this regardless of how long he has been putting money in the collection basket. If the priest (for some strange reason) is not willing to help, the diocesan Tribunal office is just a phone call away.

Well, disagree or not, that is the policy in this Diocese. We must be active in a parish for 6 months before receiving anything like marriage, or at least 3 months for Baptism.

 

[Phemie]

Well, disagree or not, that is the policy in this Diocese. We must be active in a parish for 6 months before receiving anything like marriage, or at least 3 months for Baptism.

But for an annulment, the person can petition the diocese where they are living, where their ex-spouse (civilly) is living or the diocese where they were married. It doesn’t have to be done at the parish level, although that is usually where it starts.

But different dioceses & different parishes, different rules. We have no rule in our parish or diocese that someone needs to be active in the parish for 6 months. If you are Catholic and live here, whether you’ve been here two days or fifty years, we are responsible for you. Whether the pastor celebrates your child’s baptism is up to him and in all my years working for the parish I’ve known none to be refused, though I’ve known some parents to change their minds and not have their child baptized once they realized what they were committing themselves to. They never refuse to celebrate a marriage, unless of course there is an impediment.

 

[andremiguel]

To clarify, the Church doesn’t “accepts only the Catholic Marriage.” The Church also recognizes as valid the marriages between non-Catholics wherever they take place. If both parites are baptized non-Catholics, those marriages are even sacramental.

And even Catholics can receive a dispensation to marry outside a Catholic Church building in certain circumstances (though I don’t know how many people actually bother to obtain such a dispensation or even realize that they have to).

That’s why it’s best, as you say, to talk to a priest. Or if not the priest, then one’s diocesan Tribunal office.

To tell you the truth, I am not familiar with Canon Law.
But I doubt that a person who marries knowing that he may divorce be in the same kind of “marriage” than a Catholic who knows that marriage is for life, that love is eternal.

 

[1ke]

That makes absolutely no difference.

Yes, it does make a difference, a HUGE one.

If the OP married between 1983 and 2009 AND formally defected from the Church (following the procedurs for formal defection listed here) then he was not bound by Catholic form and contracted a valid marriage.

The Pope abrogated that part of canon law on marriage in late 2009. So, going forward it is very simple, no Catholic form or dispensation from it = no valid marriage. Not so clear cut from 1983 to 2009.

The odds of the OP having formally defected are practically nil, as it required a written correspondence with the bishop few every undertake.

That said, formal defection did not make one “not Catholic”, see paragraph 7 of the document I linked to above.

 

[1ke]

In the real world, Canon 1055 says that all marriages, regardless of where they take place, are valid sacraments, thus permanent.

This is completely untrue and inaccurate. Please do not mislead the OP in such a manner. Canon 1055 does not say this. You are way off base. Canon 1055 says that if a valid marriage exists, and both parties are baptized, the marriage is a sacrament. It does not say all marriages are valid sacraments regardless of where they take place.

You had better have a pretty good reason for getting divorced from your first wife, because that was a valid sacrament under Vatican II. If you know a priest well enough to work out the problems and get you reinstated as a Roman Catholic, you will be blessed.

This is patently false.

Can.* 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

Moreover, Vatican II has nothing to do with anything. The revised code of canon law was promulgated by Pop John Paul II in 1983, not at the Vatican II Council.

 

[johndoe100]

1ke,

Are you trying to pull marriage back to pre-Vatican II when not being married in the Catholic Church was classified as, “living in sin” ?

 

[Chatter163]

1ke,

Are you trying to pull marriage back to pre-Vatican II when not being married in the Catholic Church was classified as, “living in sin” ?

The Catholic Church never referred to non-Catholics married in other churches or courts as “living in sin.”

 

[johndoe100]

The Catholic Church never referred to non-Catholics married in other churches or courts as “living in sin.”

Of course, but this is a Cathloic Forum and we are talking about at least one member of a marriage being Roman Catholic. Truthfully, I don’t like to see fellow Catholics posting Marriage Canon in a condemning other Cathloics. Why slam them down without giving them another Canon that will bring them back?

 

[Phemie]

1ke,

Are you trying to pull marriage back to pre-Vatican II when not being married in the Catholic Church was classified as, “living in sin” ?

If you are referring to a Catholic, unless he/she had a dispensation to marry outside the Church the marriage is invalid and they are ‘living in sin’. How much culpability there is depends on their understanding of this fact. Vatican II didn’t change that fact and Canon Law is clear.

 

[johndoe100]

If you are referring to a Catholic, unless he/she had a dispensation to marry outside the Church the marriage is invalid and they are ‘living in sin’. How much culpability there is depends on their understanding of this fact. Vatican II didn’t change that fact and Canon Law is clear.

All that I can say is that you are giving a false impression of the Catholic Church in the real world. If a married couple join a Parish and are practicing Cathloics for 6 months, there are mo condemning Canons. All it took was a simple confession after our marriage was blessed in the chapel. (No big deal!)

 

[Phemie]

All that I can say is that you are giving a false impression of the Catholic Church in the real world. If a married couple join a Parish and are practicing Cathloics for 6 months, there are mo condemning Canons. All it took was a simple confession after our marriage was blessed in the chapel. (No big deal!)

I wasn’t there so I won’t argue with you. Allow me to ask just one question. Did you speak your vows again?

 

[Corki]

All that I can say is that you are giving a false impression of the Catholic Church in the real world. If a married couple join a Parish and are practicing Cathloics for 6 months, there are mo condemning Canons. All it took was a simple confession **after our marriage was blessed **in the chapel. (No big deal!)

You are coming from a completely different set of circumstances than the OP and this has caused you to over-generalize.

1. You first had your marriage convalidated. I assume that did not happen until **after **your first marriage was declared null. The OP is not even trying to convalidate his marriage. My guess is that the 6 month wait was for marriage prep, a situation that does apply to the OP.
2. The OP is not remarried or even contemplating marriage. She has been to Confession. There is no reason for her to refrain from Communion or to go up for a blessing at Mass.
3. This isn’t about condeming anyone. But as you pointed out, you weren’t able to go to Confession until AFTER your marriage was convalidated. Up until that time, you couldn’t be absolved so you were not in a state of grace. This does not apply to the situation of the OP.
4. You are confusing two related but different issues. One is the validity of a marriage and the other is freedom to marry. If a Catholic marries outside the Church, his/her marriage is not valid (unless he/she received a dispensation). But that doesn’t mean he/she is free to marry someone else, even in the Church.

 

[johndoe100]

I wasn’t there so I won’t argue with you. Allow me to ask just one question. Did you speak your vows again?

Absolutely, it was the same as if we were getting married for the first time. A very beautiful marriage that any married couple would have wanted. We could have done the marriage in the main church, but we couldn’t have communion at that point. We had to have a good general confession first.

My wife’s church put pressure on her to divorse me, which put my wife through 2 months of hell. It was my wife’s own fought, because she should have stayed with me in the Cathloic Church rather than be a trouble maker with the Protestsnts.

Everything is okay now, with my wife and I visiting each other’s church occasionally. I was really surprised that the priest was so liberal as to allow
it?

 

[johndoe100]

Corki,

There are many canons and Church practices that you guys don’t know about. Both of our Catholic mothers were present at our second wedding in the chapel. They also both signed papers testifying that we were raised Catholics and have been practicing Catholics attending Mass regularly all of our lives.

There is a Canon about a couple being from a Catholic family. Also, I might add that through the entire process, the priest kept Canon Law invisible. Everything was done in Christian love.

 

[1ke]

1ke,

Are you trying to pull marriage back to pre-Vatican II when not being married in the Catholic Church was classified as, “living in sin” ?

What I am saying is that when a couple in which one or both parties are Catholic marry outside the Catholic form without a dispensation from form they attempt marriage invalidly. An invalid marriage is objectively grave matter.

This cannot be characterized as pre or post Vatican II since this particular teaching and requirement of the Church has not changed. The requirement of Catholic form was in place prior to Vatican II and it was not abrogated by Vatican II or the 1983 code of canon law.

 

[Phemie]

Corki,

There are many canons and Church practices that you guys don’t know about. Both of our Catholic mothers were present at our second wedding in the chapel. They also both signed papers testifying that we were raised Catholics and have been practicing Catholics attending Mass regularly all of our lives.

**There is a Canon about a couple being from a Catholic family. ** Also, I might add that through the entire process, the priest kept Canon Law invisible. Everything was done in Christian love.

Care to quote that canon?

 

[Corki]

Corki,

There are many canons and Church practices that you guys don’t know about.

Not really. Canon law is easily accessible by anyone with an internet connection. Several of the posters you have challenged on this thread are quite familiar with it.

Both of our Catholic mothers were present at our second wedding in the chapel. They also both signed papers testifying that we were raised Catholics and have been practicing Catholics attending Mass regularly all of our lives.

It sounds like it was a lovely ceremony but it isn’t related to the OP’s situation.

There is a Canon about a couple being from a Catholic family.

I think you are referring to Canons 1124 and/or 1125.

Everything is okay now, with my wife and I visiting each other’s church occasionally. I was really surprised that the priest was so liberal as to allow
it?

There is nothing “liberal” about the priest allowing you to visit each other’s Churches. It would only be liberal (heterodox, actually) if he was allowing you to go to your wife’s Church instead of fullfilling your Sunday obligation.

 

[1ke]

John Doe,

You have posted a lot of inconsistent inforrmation not the least of which are:

a) Your mothers attested that you were both practicing Catholics all your life at your convalidation.
b) Yet, you married in a Protestant ecclesial community and did nothing about it for 23 years
c) You repeatedly refer to your wife’s church as a Protestant church
d) You say you visit each other’s churches “occasionally”.

What the above says to me is that your description of yourself and your wife as both life long, practicing Catholics attending Mass “regularly” does not add up.

 

[Phemie]

I think you are referring to Canons 1124 and/or 1125.

These are canons relating to mixed-marriages. How do they apply here?

His posts are most confusing.

• First he married outside the church,
• then his wife’s church wanted her to divorce him,
• then they were both raised Catholic and been attending Mass regularly,
• then they both went to confession right AFTER they got married (uh? They couldn’t be in a state of grace before they got married by confessing the day before the wedding and sleeping apart overnight?)
• and now she’s back in ‘her’ church and the priests allows him to go there on Sundays?

I’m starting to think he’s yanking our chains big time.