A correspondentt writes:
I am a catholic woman. I am divorced. My first marriage was
preformed in a reception hall, by an interfaith minister, not in a
church. Therefore, can I now marry the catholic, single, man of my
dreams, in a catholic church? I dont ,myself, need an annulment if I
was never before married in the catholic church or by a priest? Correct?
If you, as a Catholic, were married outside the Church without a
dispensation allowing you to do so then your first marriage was not valid.
You do need an annulment in order to show that your first marriage was
not valid.
After receiving the annulment, you will be able to marry someone else in
the Catholic Church.
The kind of annulment you need is very easy to obtain because all you
have to do is gather the correct documents to be able to show the
circumstances of the original marriage ceremony.
Contact your local parish and say that you’d like to set up an
appointment to see about obtaining an annulment. They can help you from
there.
Hope this helps, and God bless you!
Hello Jimmy,
can I have your point of view on this :
Problems of annulments raise many questions of priests responsabilities (discernment).
In today’s Church (in a way it’s the same for infant baptisms), when two people (one of the two is catholic)want to mary in the Church, they often have “nice” meetings with the priests. I don’t really know what they are speaking about, because the people (in this example)who want to marry know about nothing on their faith and, as one friend told me for his wedding, the priest didn’t want to “bother” them with things that can shock them (I suppose the teaching of the Church on life : contraception, …)
Many priests say : let’s do that, God’s grace will probably manifest itself latter; we are planting, the seed will raise, etc… (note that I don’t really know what they are planting, while they learn nothing on faith).
I think it’s disrespect for the sacrament.
Morever, it’s a drama when years later, after a divorce, one of the two rediscovers its catholic faith and wants marry in the catholic Church.
The question is : as today, many thinks that we baptise babies too easily (whereas parents life is completly out of the Church despite their baptism), can’t we say we mary people in the Church too easily?
Been there, done that, was issued the certificate…now I have to decide whether to frame it as a reminder to remain celibate and single…or…frame it so that I will know precisely where it is if the unthinkable happen’s and I actually need it someday! Then again, perhaps i’ll just let it turn to a nice shade of sepia in a dusty draw somewhere.
God Bless.
It might also be a good idea to go to Confession before your marriage if you left the Church.
I wonder if priests get questions like, “My friend and I exchanged vows when we were in kindergarten. Do I need an annulment?” 🙂
Jimmy:
Are you sure about that? I am not a canon lawyer, but some of these parts of the CCC make it seem not so simple.
CCC 1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority. In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.
CCC 2382 Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”
Under the CCC, a mixed marriage is one between a baptized Cath and a Christian baptized under another denomination. While it requires express permission for liceity, getting married w/o the permission seems to make it illicit, but not necessarily invalid. Thus, the marriage may still be valid. On the other hand, a difference of cult – a Catholic and a non-baptized spouse – requires dispensation for validity, not just liceity. So, depending upon whether your correspondent and spouse were baptized, it may not be so cut and dried. But like you said, the parish should be able to direct them.
I am amazed at how easy the Catholic Church allows divorce and remarriage. One of the key implications of marriage as a blood covenant (and I think the Bible does present it that way) is that it cannot be broken without the death of one of the spouses. That is inherant in the shedding of blood calling down death on the one who breaks the covenant. And that ties in to why Christ had to die on the Cross in our place.
If the covenant vows are made, and the marriage is consumated, it lasts until one of the spouses is dead, whether of old age, accident, disease, or execution for adultery. Since our legal system doesn’t do the latter. . .
One -might- argue that if the vows do not include the equivalent of “until death do us part” then it was a contract of concubinage, not marriage, but I’m not sure it is spiritually safe to do so.
Circuit:
Your post raises two issues.
You state:
“If the covenant vows are made, and the marriage is consumated, it lasts until one of the spouses is dead”
True enough. However, a decree of nullity simply acknowledges that one or both of the parties were not capable of making the covenant vows. This is the equivalent of a void ab initio contract in law as opposed to a voidable contract.
You also state:
“I am amazed at how easy the Catholic Church allows divorce and remarriage”
The issue of how easily the Church lets people slide through this process (and the common perception is that if you have enough money you’ll get through) is another matter completely.
C Matt: I am extremely sure of this. I have been over the Code of Canon Law in this regard I don’t know how many times.
The problem that is keeping a marriage from coming into existence in the above circumstances is not mixed marriage or disparity of cult. Indeed, the correspondent doesn’t even mention the religion of her first husband.
The problem is lack of form. Catholics are required to observe the Catholic form of marriage unless they are dispensed from it, and failure to do so results in invalidity.
The correspondent (apparently) got married outside the Church and thus did not observe the Catholic form of marriage. If she did not have a dispensation from form (which she does not mention) then the marriage would be invalid.
Esquire: One tweak: An annulment does not show that the parties were not capable of making covenant vows. They may have been capable of them and simply not done so. What an annulment shows is that what appeared to be a genuine marriage was, for one reason or another, invalid from the beginning.
Broadly speaking, the reasons for invalidity can be summed up under the three heads of lack of form, lack of capacity, and lack of matrimonial consent.
Help me out on a word play. Is it correct to say a marriage was determined “invalid”? Or does the word “invalid” imply validity orginally existed but now does not?
(fmi)
If a Catholic and a Baptist get married in a Baptist ceremony w/o dispensation, they lack form and thus the marriage is canonically invalid; but, had they married in a Catholic ceremony (or w/ dispensation), it would be valid?
The CCC should be a little more clear on this.
But if the ministers of the sacrament are the man and woman, and not the priest (at least in the Roman Rite), isn’t it possible to have valid (though illict) marriages that occur outside the Catholic Church, assuming both parties are baptized, and have the intent of a permanent, exclusive, and fruitful union which they express in vows? I’m just curious – but I don’t see, given the requirements for the sacrament, how not being in a specifically Catholic Church would automatically invalidate it.
Actuually, I’m not just curious. A Lutheran friend of mine was asking about the possibility of marrying a marginally Catholic woman who had previously been married to an atheist – whether, in my Catholic opinion, the marriage would be valid. I told him to check if the ex-husband was baptized, because I read the Catechism and reached the exact same conclusions as c matt.
So, as follow-up questions:
Are Protestant to Protestant marriages valid in the eyes of the Church?
And, what are the essential elements that constitute the requisite “form”?
If someone gets married with all the conditions present to make theirs a valid marriage, but thinks during the ceremony that she will leave (but not divorce) her husband if he cheats on her, will the marriage be valid?
(I know there is a requirement that the spouses intend to stay together forever or else it’s not valid)
tip writes:
Because Christian marriage is indissoluble, “invalid” means “was never valid.” There is no way for a marriage that ever was valid to stop being valid.
Circuit Rider writes:
It isn’t a question of the Catholic Church “allowing” anything. Rather, it’s a sad commentary on how easy it is in our post-Christian culture for invalid marriages to occur.
As a partial analogy, the Catholic Church doesn’t allow second baptisms, but if for some reason large numbers of a generation of Catholic children ended up getting baptized in an invalid way, either due to improper form (e.g., “in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier”), or improper matter (e.g., milk), or for some other reason, the solution to that problem would involve [a] the acknowledgement that many putative baptisms were not in fact baptisms at all and [b] large numbers of what some would inevitably call “re-baptisms” — though they wouldn’t be re-baptisms in fact, but only baptisms of those who had never validly been baptized to begin with.
It’s sort of like that with marriage. If there’s a scandal in this regard, and there is, it’s probably less to do with the marriage tribunals that find marriages invalid and pave the way for subsequent valid marriages, than with the faulty catechesis that has left a generation of Catholics so susceptible to going out and contracting invalid marriages.
Jimmy’s correspondent went out and got married under circumstances in which she could not validly marry, and as a result her marriage was not a real marriage. Boo on her catechists and pastors, and probably her parents too, for failing to instill in her that she couldn’t do that, but it happened. What shall we do now? Pretend that the marriage was valid when it wasn’t, so we won’t have the appearance of divorce and remarriage?
c matt
>>If a Catholic and a Baptist get married in a Baptist ceremony w/o dispensation, they lack form and thus the marriage is canonically invalid; but, had they married in a Catholic ceremony (or w/ dispensation), it would be valid?
Correct. The other party doesn’t even have to be a Christian in this case. It’s not even really an issue of divorce/annulment per se. Let me give my own example (not at all involving divorce) to illustrate.
When I was coming back to the Church this same question arose. Were my wife and I (married by a justice of the peace) married in the eyes of the Church. The question was whether I was Catholic at the time of the marriage or not. If I was Catholic, my marriage would have been invalid. Why? Because I hadn’t obtained a dispensation. If I was not Catholic, it was valid. Why? Because as a non-Catholic, I was not required to get the dispensation and had followed the correct form for my state at the time. Because I had previosly, and formally repudicated the faith, I was considered non-Catholic at that point and thus needed no dispensation. The marriage was deemed valid by the Bishop of the diocese. Hope that helps.
I think I get it now, but an example (happened to a friend – names changed to protect, etc.):
Barb and Joe, both baptized Catholics, marry in a Catholic ceremony. They get a divorce. Barb remarries Fred (both baptized Catholic) before a jp court, and then divorces. Barb then wants to marry Jebediah, a Jewish guy, in a civil ceremony.
For Barb’s marriage to Jeb to be recognized by the RCC (thus allowing her to receive communion), she needs (aside from a little bit of good spiritual counselling, it would seem):
1) to go to confession (as we all do)
2) an annulment from Joe (assuming it could be obtained);
3) an annulment from Fred, as the second marriage would not be recognized (simply to show it was not recognized, and should be more readily obtainable than #2); and
4) a dispensation from her bishop(?) to marry Jeb (different cult).
Something about that still seems wrong – doesn’t speaking about following a form according to one’s “state at the time” subjectivize the sacrament?
But if the ministers of the sacrament are the man and woman, and not the priest (at least in the Roman Rite), isn’t it possible to have valid (though illict) marriages that occur outside the Catholic Church, assuming both parties are baptized, and have the intent of a permanent, exclusive, and fruitful union which they express in vows?
Once upon a time, they did indeed have this. You didn’t even need witnesses.
Naturally, this led to a lot of problems about bigamy, about claiming that a marriage was invalid because in a betrothal, the vows were binding enough to keep the later marriage from being binding, etc.
Therefore, the requirements were added. They are matters of discipline not dogma, but as Catholics are bound by the discipline, the failure to adhere to them can invalidate your vows.
Note that a Catholic couple, or the Catholic in a mixed marriage, can apply for a dispensation after the wedding — even years after. I believe this is called convalidation.
eadfrith
>>Something about that still seems wrong – doesn’t speaking about following a form according to one’s “state at the time” subjectivize the sacrament?
To clarify, what I mean by ‘state’ is that I was in the ‘state’ of being non-catholic having repudiated my faith earlier. I was not referring to locality in which I lived. Is that what seemed off to you? As for following the form, I only meant that as a non-catholic, I didnt’ need to get the dispensation.
If two atheists get married, they are in a non-Catholic, but still valid marriage as far as the Church is concerned. I was basically in the same position.
Not sure if that helps?
If there are children involved, just getting an annulment and getting married may not be fair or just to the children. Her best and most loving course of action would be to regularize her marriage with the father of her children. She also may not be capable of a sacramental marriage and that should be investigated before any steps are taken.
Esquire, the article that was pointed to was I think I remember, going on about how if the husband and wife don’t love each other properly, then there is no marriage, which sounds to me an awful lot like “we just don’t love each other anymore.”
How about a movement to end no-fault civil divorces?
Jimmy, what exactly is lack of form? Is it the example I gave of not pledging til death do you part but rather a birkenstock “as long as we self-actualize the other” or some such made-up thing, or is it using the Book of Common Prayer rather than whatever the current Latin Rite version is?
Steven, I guess I’ve seen or heard of some mighty fishy grants of annulment, and assumed that they were out of order, but now I’m just plain confused as to what exactly is valid and invalid, and whether it is simple and Biblical as some have posted, or if there are loopholes you could drive an oil tanker through.
Steve, wouldn’t it have been illicit rather than invalid, because God established marriage from the beginning and not just for the Church?
Yes, I believe your explanation is technically more accurate than mine-I am no canon lawyer after all 😉
Steve – no, I knew what you meant. But isn’t that arguing that a marriage is valid as long as the couple is following whatever rules they acknowledge at the time (regardless of whether those rules come from the Church)? Somehow the idea of a sacrament’s validity hingeing on that doesn’t sound correct.
After all, Anglicans follow the form according to their state at the time for Holy Orders and the Eucharist, but the Catholic Church does not consider those sacraments valid. Same with Mormons and Baptism.
And doesn’t this principle essentially say that the Church (or any church) can arbitrarily change what constitutes a valid sacrament based on discipline? Suppose the Baptists make up a rule that Baptists can’t marry Methodists, and a Baptist and a Methodist marry and later become Catholic. They were not following the correct form for their state at the time. Are they married now or not?
“Therefore, the requirements were added. They are matters of discipline not dogma, but as Catholics are bound by the discipline, the failure to adhere to them can invalidate your vows.”
So the Church can add requirements as to what constitutes a valid sacrament? I know that disciplinary changes can change licety, but validity? And if they do, how are they not dogmatic if they have a supernatural effect?
This sound like a real theological mess just waiting to happen. What is to stop someone from arguing that the Church can just as easily retract requirements for validity (like, say, masculinity in the case of holy orders)?
And if the argument is that Catholics marrying in violation of church disciplines are not married simply because they are being bad, disobedient Catholics, does this contradict the doctrine that the worthines of the minister does not affect the validity of the sacraments?
I hope the host addresses this in a little more depth in another post. I’m afraid that this one is old enough that it will soon be forgotten, and I really want to understand this.