Marriage & Annulment Reader Roundup

READER A writes:

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?

One can certainly argue this. I suspect it varies considrably from country to country as to what the rate of imprudent Chuch weddings is. However, couples have a right to Christian marriage as long as they fulfill the basic requirements, so we can’t simply leave the matter to the discretion of church staffers to impose all kinds of touchie-feelie requirements on the couple. They can be told what the Church teaches, asked to agree to at least this much, and encouraged to think through the prudence of a marriage in their individual case, but ultimately the faithful have a right to marry that cannot be unduly burdened, particularly by the whims of parish officials.

READER B writes:

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.

One linguistic quibble: "Celibate" and "single" mean the same thing. "Celibate" means "unmarried."  The state of not having conjugal relations is "continent" rather than "celibate" (continence being morally required of all who are celibate = unmarried).

READER C writes:

I wonder if priests get questions like, "My friend and I exchanged
vows when we were in kindergarten. Do I need an annulment?" 🙂

Actually, they do get questions like this. However, people in such a situation don’t need an annulment. Such "ceremonies" aren’t recognized by anybody as constituting a valid marriage. Children of this age do not understand what marriage is and are incapable of committing to it. For a ceremony to require investigation and annulment, it must have some pretense (in someone’s eyes) of having been valid.

READER D writes:

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?

"Invalid" means "was never valid/did not come into existence/never existed."

READER E writes:

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.

READER F writes:

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.

The requirement for Catholics to observe the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., to "get married in the Church") does not arise from the nature of the sacrament itself. The sacrament can and is validly celebrated in non-Catholic services (e.g., by two Baptists getting married in a Baptist church or, for that matter, in front of a justice of the peace or a ship captain). The requirement to observe form is a positive law requirement that used to not be there. Originally, canon law did not require it, but in recent times, as society has changed, the Church has seen fit to introduce it for pastoral reasons. As society continues to change, the Church might see fit to abolish this requirement at some point in the future (and the reinstitute it again later, if needed).

READER F continues:

Are Protestant to Protestant marriages valid in the eyes of the Church?

And, what are the essential elements that constitute the requisite "form"?

Yes to the first question. As to the second, SEE HERE.

READER G writes:

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)

This marriage will be presumed valid. While there is an obligation to maintain domestic and conjugal life under ordinary circumstances, this obligation is overriden in grave situations, such as when one partner is unfaithful to the other. In such a circumstance, the offended party is within his or her rights to suspend domestic and/or conjugal life, even permanently. It may even be prudent in such situations to obtain a civil divorce (which has no bearing on Church law but may be useful for asset protection, child custody rights, etc.).

What is not entailed in this, however, is the right to remarry someone else. For that to happen, one needs an annulment proving that the first marriage was invalid so one is free to marry.

READER H writes:

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) TECHNICALLY, NO. WHILE BY ENTERING INTO AN INVALID MARRIAGE WITH FRED, BARB HAS DONE SOMETHING OBJECTIVELY SINFUL, THE STATE OF GRACE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE TO BE VALID. IT IS REQUIRED FOR IT TO BE LICIT (LAWFUL), BUT NOT VALID. LOADS OF FOLKS ENTER VALID MARRIAGES IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN.

2) an annulment from Joe (assuming it could be obtained); CORRECT.

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 CORRECT.

4) a dispensation from her bishop(?) to marry Jeb (different cult). CORRECT, BUT HOW MANY JEWISH GUYS ARE NAMED "JEB" THESE DAYS? THAT’S MORE A CHRISTIAN NAME TODAY.

READER I writes:

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.

Yes, but it’s not quite that simple. If a Catholic failed to observe the Catholic form of marriage then technically what is done is to apply for an annulment and then have the marriage convalidated, typically by a renewal of vows in a simple marriage ceremony in front of a priest (though other arrangements are possible if one of the spouses objects to this). A dispensation from form is only typically needed in the latter case if a non-Catholic is involved. If two Catholics are involved then they simply have their marriage convalidated in front of a priest.

READER J writes:

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.

While convalidating the marriage with the children’s father may be the best thing for the children, it also may not be. Some fathers (like some mothers) are more destructive influences than constructive and it may be better to marry someone else or stay single. That being said, the presumption would be for the children’s parents to be married to each other.

The only ways for a person not to be capable of a sacramental marriage (in general) are if the person is (a) unbaptized or (b) incapable of marriage. The former here is precluded by the fact the original correspondent is Catholic and if (b) is the case then she shouldn’t be trying to marry anyone. That, however, complicates the question beyond what the correspondent asked about.

READER J writes:

doesn’t this principle [requiring Catholics to observe form] 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?

The difference is that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and so has the power to bind and loose. Unlike other Churches (which may regard themselves as having this power), the Catholic Church genuinely does have the authority to, for pastoral reasons, establish impediments to the celebration of the sacraments.

READER J continues:

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? YES.

This sound like a real theological mess just waiting to happen. MAYBE. 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)? THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT THE CHURCH CAN DO. IT CAN ESTABLISH AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CELEBRATION OF A SACRAMENT (LIKE OBSERVING PROPER FORM), AND IT CAN REGULATE VARIABLE DIVINE REQUIREMENTS (LIKE WHETHER OR NOT YEAST CAN BE MIXED WITH THE WHEAT TO MAKE ALTAR BREAD), BUT IT CANNOT ABROGATE A FUNDAMENTAL DIVINE REQUIREMENT (LIKE MARRIAGE BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN OR THE EUCHARIST REQUIRING WHEAT BREAD AND GRAPE WINE). THE LAST ARE MATTERS OF DIVINE LAW THAT ECCLESIASTICAL LAW CANNOT CHANGE.

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? NO, BECAUSE THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD OR DISOBEDIENT. THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THERE IS AN IMPEDIMENT ESTABLISHED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

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.

Hope this helps!