Yet ANOTHER Marriage Question

[rick43235]

“You need to more accurately understand what the Church is doing in the annulment process. The Church can not make anything null that was once valid. The Church only assesses the state of the marriage to determine if it was ever valid IN THE FIRST PLACE.”

This quote from another thread seems to sum up the concept of “annulment” as I understand it. The Tribunal is not really annulling a marriage, but determining whether or not a marriage was valid from the beginning. Which leads me to my question. Suppose a (unhappy) couple obtained a civil divorce and went through the annulment process, and the Tribunal ruled that the marriage was invalid. The parties to this invalid marriage would then be free to marry again because the Tribunal determined that their previous marriage wasn’t really a marriage. Now, suppose this same couple in the same marriage didn’t get a divorce, but instead decided to just remain unhappily together. Same people, same marriage, same unhappy circumstances. The only difference is that they did not get a divorce or subject their marriage to examination by the Tribunal. Is their marriage valid or invalid?

Thanks for putting up with my questions.

 

[Phemie]

It’s still invalid but without examination & confirmation of such by the Tribunal it’s presumed valid.

 

[TheDoctor]

I believe that a marriage between two baptized persons (as you hypothesize here) is presumed valid until the Tribunal determines it is not. So, the unhappy marriage is valid.

 

[rick43235]

It’s still invalid but without examination & confirmation of such by the Tribunal it’s presumed valid.

I* believe that a marriage between two baptized persons (as you hypothesize here) is presumed valid until the Tribunal determines it is not. So, the unhappy marriage is valid*

Two answers, two different conclusions.

From my perspective, it is certainly reasonable to assume that a marriage is valid if it has not been examined by the Tribunal. But, assuming that I am correct that the Tribunal does not nullify marriages, but rather examines them to determine whether or not they were valid from the beginning, it seems possible to me that there are couples “out there” living in invalid marriages without even knowing it.

 

[Phemie]

It’s still invalid but without examination & confirmation of such by the Tribunal it’s presumed valid.

I* believe that a marriage between two baptized persons (as you hypothesize here) is presumed valid until the Tribunal determines it is not. So, the unhappy marriage is valid*

Two answers, two different conclusions.

From my perspective, it is certainly reasonable to assume that a marriage is valid if it has not been examined by the Tribunal. But, assuming that I am correct that the Tribunal does not nullify marriages, but rather examines them to determine whether or not they were valid from the beginning, it seems possible to me that there are couples “out there” living in invalid marriages without even knowing it.

Well, that’s kind of obvious: every couple whose marriage was determined to be INVALID was living an invalid marriage without knowing it until they were told.

 

[TheDoctor]

Rick - I think Phemie and I do reach the same conclusion, i.e. the marriage is valid until the Tribunal determines otherwise.

You are correct though, that there may very well be couples who are living what they believe to be valid marriages that would be declared invalid but unless and until they submit to the Tribunal, it is assumed to be valid.

 

[rick43235]

Rick - I think Phemie and I do reach the same conclusion, i.e. the marriage is valid until the Tribunal determines otherwise.

While you and Phemie (and I, for that matter) agree that the marriage would be assumed valid, I think there is still disagreement regarding whether or not the marriage is, in fact, valid. Actually, unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be suggesting that the Tribunal DOES nullify a previously valid marriage, which would go against what I was assuming. .

You are correct though, that there may very well be couples who are living what they believe to be valid marriages that would be declared invalid but unless and until they submit to the Tribunal, it is assumed to be valid.

I guess it is at this point that I am really starting to struggle. Would a couple living is such a situation be living in a state of mortal sin, or would their ignorance of the actual state of their marriage excuse them? And, to take it a step further, what about a couple where one of them had been previously married and divorced. Without an examination by the Tribunal they are assumed to be living in an invalid marriage and committing adultery. But, if the first marriage, though assumed valid, was in fact invalid, then would they REALLY be committing adultery in the second marriage?

I suppose these questions have no real practical value, but I find it to be an interesting hypothetical exercise, especially since the question of valid versus invalid marriage seems to be a stumbling for so many people who want to enter the Church.

 

[Phemie]

In the case of the marriage that is presumed valid, the couple can’t be at fault for something of which they are unaware. Mortal sin requires knowledge and intent.

In the other case, if you think something is a sin and go ahead and do it anyway are you in fact committing a sin even if your original assumption was wrong?? I would think that here again, intent counts.

 

[rick43235]

In the case of the marriage that is presumed valid, the couple can’t be at fault for something of which they are unaware. Mortal sin requires knowledge and intent.

Yes, I see what you mean. I can agree on this point.

In the other case, if you think something is a sin and go ahead and do it anyway are you in fact committing a sin even if your original assumption was wrong?? I would think that here again, intent counts.

OK, if the couple THOUGHT they were sinning but did it anyway, I suppose they might be on rather shaky moral ground. Still, in the end, they might “get off” because they were not, in fact, behaving sinfully. (I’m glad these decisions are left to someone much wiser than myself.)

Now, to add another twist to the situation, what about a couple in situation number two who honestly believed that the first marriage was invalid. (Even though the first marriage was not subjected to examination by the Tribunal, let’s assume that if it had been examined, it would have been ruled invalid.) Based upon this belief, they further believed that their current marriage was, in fact, valid. It is not their intent to sin. In this situation, are they living in an adulterous relationship?

 

[Phemie]

rick43235:
What are you doing, writing a text on how to sin??

In the last case it depends on whether one member of the couple is Catholic or if they’re both non-Catholic. If one or both are Catholic they can’t rightly believe their marriage to be valid since it couldn’t have been celebrated in the Church or out of it with a dispensation for lack of form.

 

[rick43235]

What are you doing, writing a text on how to sin??

Hey, I hadn’t thought of that. I bet the market for such a guide would be HUGE!
In the last case it depends on whether one member of the couple is Catholic or if they’re both non-Catholic. If one or both are Catholic they can’t rightly believe their marriage to be valid since it couldn’t have been celebrated in the Church or out of it with a dispensation for lack of form.

 

[ForMary]

“You need to more accurately understand what the Church is doing in the annulment process. The Church can not make anything null that was once valid. The Church only assesses the state of the marriage to determine if it was ever valid IN THE FIRST PLACE.”

This quote from another thread seems to sum up the concept of “annulment” as I understand it. The Tribunal is not really annulling a marriage, but determining whether or not a marriage was valid from the beginning. Which leads me to my question. Suppose a (unhappy) couple obtained a civil divorce and went through the annulment process, and the Tribunal ruled that the marriage was invalid. The parties to this invalid marriage would then be free to marry again because the Tribunal determined that their previous marriage wasn’t really a marriage. Now, suppose this same couple in the same marriage didn’t get a divorce, but instead decided to just remain unhappily together. Same people, same marriage, same unhappy circumstances. The only difference is that they did not get a divorce or subject their marriage to examination by the Tribunal. Is their marriage valid or invalid?

Thanks for putting up with my questions.

It is my understanding that a couple can not seek an annulment until a civil divorce has been granted.

 

[rick43235]

What are you doing, writing a text on how to sin??

Hey, I hadn’t thought of that. I bet the market for such a guide would be HUGE!

In the last case it depends on whether one member of the couple is Catholic or if they’re both non-Catholic. If one or both are Catholic they can’t rightly believe their marriage to be valid since it couldn’t have been celebrated in the Church or out of it with a dispensation for lack of form.

OK, assume they are non-Catholic. Lack of form is not a issue. My contention (given the assumptions in my previous example) is that they are not “living in sin.” Even though it remains unexamined, the first marriage was invalid from it’s inception. Therefore, the previous marriage cannot render the second marriage invalid.

Anyway, that is the basis for the first chapter of Rick’s Guide to Loopholes for Sinners. If you think I tortured logic with THIS argument, wait until you read the second chapter: “Sundays and Holy Days - Valid Excuses for Sleeping In.”

 

[Phemie]

It is my understanding that a couple can not seek an annulment until a civil divorce has been granted.

Your understanding is correct, but that’s not what the OP was asking.

An invalid marriage is invalid whether or not the Tribunal has ruled on it but until the Tribunal does rule the marriage is PRESUMED to be valid.

 

[Phemie]

rick43235;3468376 – In the last case it depends on whether one member of the couple is Catholic or if they’re both non-Catholic. If one or both are Catholic they can’t rightly believe their marriage to be valid since it couldn’t have been celebrated in the Church or out of it with a dispensation for lack of form.
**OK, assume they are non-Catholic. Lack of form is not a issue. My contention (given the assumptions in my previous example) is that they are not “living in sin.” Even though it remains unexamined, the first marriage was invalid from it’s inception. Therefore, the previous marriage cannot render the second marriage invalid. **

Since they are not bound by the rules of the Catholic Church they can’t be considered to be living in sin if they are legally married.

 

[Cristiano]

Your understanding is correct, but that’s not what the OP was asking.

An invalid marriage is invalid whether or not the Tribunal has ruled on it but until the Tribunal does rule the marriage is PRESUMED to be valid.

How can you be sure of that? To me that is putting limits to the Divine Providence! I am not saying that you are wrong, but that it is not so clear cut.

If you assume that two people married with the clear and conscious intention of not having children at all, their marriage would be invalid. However, if after a change of heart they become open to procreation then their marriage is truly sacramental.

I think that the problem is to treat the annulment process as a simple legal issue disjointed from God’s will and people’s will to follow God. Something valid cannot become invalid; however something invalid could turn into something valid just out of the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[rick43235]

Since they are not bound by the rules of the Catholic Church they can’t be considered to be living in sin if they are legally married.

While I tend to agree with you, I don’t believe that this is the position the Church takes. It is my understanding that, since the Catholic Church purports to be the one true church established by Christ, it’s doctrines and rules apply to everyone, Catholic or not, whether they like it or not. Consequently, the non-Catholic couple in my example would be subject to the rules of the Catholic Church. (Of course, as non-Catholics, they are most likely not concerned about Church law, so as a practical matter, this wouldn’t affect them anyway.)

 

[Cristiano]

While I tend to agree with you, I don’t believe that this is the position the Church takes. It is my understanding that, since the Catholic Church purports to be the one true church established by Christ, it’s doctrines and rules apply to everyone, Catholic or not, whether they like it or not. Consequently, the non-Catholic couple in my example would be subject to the rules of the Catholic Church. (Of course, as non-Catholics, they are most likely not concerned about Church law, so as a practical matter, this wouldn’t affect them anyway.)

I think that the confusion here is between a valid marriage and a sacramental marriage. Non-catholics can have valid marriages (natural law) but they are not sacramental (Grace). However, for Catholics a valid marriage implies a sacramental one. There are cases where Canon law has different expectations for non-catholics.

 

[rick43235]

Something valid cannot become invalid; however something invalid could turn into something valid just out of the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is interesting. I have always understood that the validity of a marriage is established at it’s inception. You assert that a previously invalid marriage can become valid due to a subsequent change of heart. I would agree with you if it also worked the other way; that a previously valid marriage could become invalid due to a change of heart.

I think that the problem is to treat the annulment process as a simple legal issue disjointed from God’s will and people’s will to follow God.

This, in my opinion, gets right to the heart of the problem. A quasi-legal system has been established that directly affects who can and cannot be in full communion with the Church. The Tribunal judges the validity of a marriage by applying Canon Law to a marriage that may have ended many years ago. There is, in my opinion, no way they can know the true conscience of the parties at inception of the marriage. Consequently, I suspect that at least some of the decisions handed down by the Tribunal do not reflect the true state of the marriages they have examined. To me, it would make more sense to do away with the “legal system,” simply take people at their word regarding the state of their marriage, then let God sort them out.

But of course, I’m not in charge of such matters.

 

[rick43235]

I think that the confusion here is between a valid marriage and a sacramental marriage. Non-catholics can have valid marriages (natural law) but they are not sacramental (Grace). However, for Catholics a valid marriage implies a sacramental one. There are cases where Canon law has different expectations for non-catholics.

You might be right. I’m not real clear on the concept of “sacramental marriage” as opposed to “valid marriage.”

Does Canon Law have different expectations for non-Catholics where divorce and remarriage are concerned? It was my understanding that, where these topics are concerned, the rules are the same for everyone.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.