A reader writes:
I was raised as a Catholic, but when I was in my twenties I started slowly drifting away from the Church. I was married in a Protestant Church and regularly attend its or other Protestant services with my wife. On occasion I also attend Catholic Mass (but do not receive Communion.)
Recently I have been contemplating the possibility of re-joining (probably not the correct word) the Catholic Church and am wondering what would be involved in this process. I am not sure if they are relevant, but here are a few other facts:
I have been married only once
My wife has been married previously and divorced.
My wife has always been a Protestant and is probably not interested in converting.
I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic ChurchI assume that the fact that my marriage is not valid in the eyes of Rome is an issue with my getting back into the Catholic Church. I assume that my wife and I would have to be remarried in a Catholic Church. Would my wife have to have her previous marriage annulled? On one level that would not make sense to me as her first marriage would not have been valid under Catholic rules, but at the same time I somehow have the idea in my head that her prior marriage would have to be annulled.
I would be most appreciative if you could give me some direction in this area.
Thank you very much for writing and for being willing to confront these issues in a straightforward way. It is a sign that God is working in your heart and that you are cooperating with his grace–something that he will definitely bless.
It does not appear from what you said that you ever formally defected from the Church, and so you’re right that re-joining might not be the right word.
What you do want to do is to be reconciled with the Church, and for a person in your position the fundamental way to do that is the same as for most people whose full communion with the Church has been impaired in some way: to go to confession.
Upon being able to make a good confession, you would be restored to normal status in the Church and able to lead a full sacramental life.
They key is being able to make a good confession, and that is where your wife’s marriage is relevant.
Since your wife was not a Catholic at the time of her first marriage, she was not bound to observe the Catholic form of marriage, and so the Church would presume that her first marriage was valid.
If it was valid then she was not free to marry you (assuming her former husband was still alive at the time your marriage to her took place) and the two of you would not be validly married. This means that you would not be entitled to conjugal relations with each other, and if you are having them then you would not be able to make a good confession.
The typical solution to your situation (which is very common) would be for your wife to pursue an annulment for her first marriage. If it is found null then you and she would be free to have your marriage convalidated, at which point you would be able to continue leading a conjugal life and be able to make a good confession and return to normal sacramental life as a Catholic.
Since your wife is not Catholic, it may be difficult for her to understand and accept the need to pursue a solution like this, but–even if she does not think this is needed or desirable–hopefully she can understand how important it is for you as a Catholic to be reconciled to your Church and to pursue a solution like this as a matter of conscience. Her conscience may not require her to pursue such steps, but yours does, and hopefully she can come to understand and appreciate that.
She may even find a form of healing by working through the annulment process and coming to have a better understanding of why her first marriage failed and to "close the books on it" in a sense. Many people, even non-Catholics, have reported that the annulment process helped them come to terms with what happened to their prior marriages and provided a kind of clarity and healing that they appreciated.
Pursuing a solution such as the one above may be difficult at times, but God will make sure that you and your wife have the grace you need to deal with whatever happens. Trust him to guide and strengthen you, moment by moment, and he will make sure that you have the grace that you both need.
He loves you both, and more than you know. After all, he sent his Son to die so that you might have the graces he wants to give you.
I hope this helps, and I encourage my readers to keep you and all in similar situations in their prayers.
BTW, I also authored a short booklet on annulments to help people understand them better. You can get a copy of it here.
20
So what if this person’s wife were only married in front of the JP with her first husband? Would she still need to get an annulment?
Dear DJ,
My civil “Certificate of Registry of Marriage,” which I happen to have a copy of at hand, includes the signatures of:
1) My wife
2) Me; These two were for the “Affadavit” section.
3) County Clerk for the “License to Marry” section.
–> First three are before one has in hand a “License to Marry
4) Witness 1
5) Witness 2
6) Deupty Commissioner of Civil Marriage (Person performing Ceremony)
–> These three are at the time of Civil Marriage
7) Local Registrar to record the County Record
–> Final one is when the document becomes public record
At least in my state, there is no such thing as a Civil marriage without two witnesses.
Jimmy-
Dunno if this is 100% relevant to the conversation, but I have been thinking about your previous post on attending weddings. Is the Church’s recognition of a marriage infallible, or is it merely the Church’s best judgement as to whether a sacramental marriage took place?
For example, if a Catholic was once married and then divorced, and a bishop later deems the marriage as annulled, then marries another person in the Church, does that mean that in the eyes of God, there is a 100% guarantee that God recognizes marriage #2?
I was taught (and please correct me if I am mistaken) that in the sacrament of Matrimony, the ministers are one unmarried baptized man and one unmarried baptized woman who pledge a) fidelity, b) a lifelong commitment, and c) Openness to children.
In that light, two lapsed unmarried baptized Catholics who sincerely pledge the same in a Protestant church would seemingly meet the above criteria. Under the new criteria laid out in your previous post, this marriage would be deemed invalid according to Canon Law. If they divorced and one of the two sought and was granted an annulment, would that person’s second marriage (in the Church) be a valid, sacramental marriage in the eyes of God?
I am not talking about culpability, obviously if someone sincerely believes that the first marriage was invalid (and the Church agrees), the person is not knowingly committing a sin. Could that person, however, be unknowingly married to another person.
Jimmy;
The one thing that is rarely mentioned in answers like yours is the very real possibility that the first marriage was/is valid and that she was/is not able to marry someone else.
Mike, I believe that in a previous response to a question, Jimmy indicated that annulments are not infallible.
Billy, I guess the issue of whether an annulment is infallible was a rhetorical question… Obviously, an annulment is (for a large part) based upon human judgement. A more liberal diocese may grant them at higher rates than a more conservative one (although I’ve met only one person who tried and couldn’t obtain one).
I guess my criticism has more to do with the canonical guidelines for determining marriage validity. It seems to me that the guidelines in Canon Law really have more to do with licitity than validity.
My layman’s stance on the above-mentioned marriage between lapsed Catholics would be that their marriage was valid, however it was illicit in that they did not marry according to the Church’s regulations. Perhaps by doing so, the couple incurs automatic excommunication for their actions. But I don’t see how the marriage is invalid, considering the ministers (bride and groom) and the matter (the vows between the two) were proper for the sacrament.
I just don’t see how it’s much different from the illicit bishop’s ordination in China. In that case, the Church presumed that the ordination was valid, and thereby the Bishops were deemed excommunicated.
An SSPX mass is considered valid, but illicit. The Vatican and Canon Law do not deny that the bread and wine become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
All I’m saying is that I fear that a lot of people out there are getting “married” with the Church’s blessing, when in fact one of the partners already has valid sacramental unity (in the eyes of God) with another person.
We need all of God’s graces we can get. Especially in a marriage in today’s age.
But I don’t see how the marriage is invalid, considering the ministers (bride and groom) and the matter (the vows between the two) were proper for the sacrament.
Because, being Catholic, they were bound by the canon law of the Church.
“they were bound by the canon law of the Church”
But so are SSPX, Chinese bishops, laicized priests who says mass, etc. These offenses by clergy are very much against Canon Law, and incur excommunications, but these sacraments are deemed valid.
It just doesn’t add up for me. I understand how Canon Law tells you what you should and shouldn’t do to remain in communion with the Church, but I don’t understand how in some cases it can render one sacrament that uses the valid ministers and matter invalid while in other cases simply illicit.
Maybe I’m unclear on illicit vs. invalid sacraments (I’ve only really heard the distinctions used for Ordination and the Eucharist), and I can understand how the couple might excommunicate themselves, but to me it seems they would be validly married and thus ineligible for an annulment.
Is the marriage between two Jews considered valid? How about between two Moslems, or Buddhists? What about a civil marriage between atheists? Which kinds of marriages does the Church recognize?
Joy-
I believe the Church assumes all first marriages between one man and one woman are valid, until annulled. Marriage between two non-baptized people is deemed valid, but not sacramental, because baptism is the gateway for all other sacraments.
If two Buddhists convert to Catholicism, they would need their marriage blessed by the Church in order for the Church to deem it sacramentally valid.
My qualm is with the criteria for annulments. As Jimmy spelled out in an earlier post, the Vatican has recently set forth new definitions for its criteria to judge marriage validity in annulment proceedings.
Non-sacramental marriages can be easily annulled, because the grace inherent in the sacrament was not present. The new instruction states that a Catholic who has not documented a formal defection from the Church and marries outside the Church has entered into an invalid marriage, and thus the annullment process would be easy under this circumstance.
My argument is that it is unwise to annull such a marriage because two baptized people who enter into a marriage contract (in the Catholic Church, this requires freely making commitments to fidelity, openness to children, and marriage until one partner dies). If the marriage has all of these at any point in the marriage, it becomes valid and breakable only by the death of one spouse.
For the sacrament of Matrimony, the couple is the minister, and the Church is an official witness that blesses the marriage. That is why a deacon is an acceptable minister. But the Church’s witness is to put the stamp of approval on the marriage, and marriages between Protestants, Orthodox, or Schismatics such as SSPX (I assume) are also deemed valid and sacramental.
You can also have a marriage “sanitized” after an annulment. This is in the event that one of the spouses does not feel that their current marriage is invalid and does not need to be redone.
As for the man in the first post: Though he is in an irregular marriage, he can return to the church, but not the sacraments until such time as his decree of invalidity goes through. I have several parishioners that want to be in contact with the Church of their childhood, but cannot marry in the Church. They are content to “be at Mass” and live with the consequences of their choices while absent from the Church. What is at stake here is the acceptance of the Church’s authority to impose sanctions on irregular marriages. Truly generous persons (on the part of both the Catholic and the previously married Protestant spouse) can accept the authority of the Church, or at least accept that it is important to the Catholic party and choose to go along with him for the sake of their current living situation.
The sanctions of the Church are meant to bring one into conformity with the Faith, and so the withdrawal of sacraments from those in irregular marriages hopes to invite the errant into a regular marriage because of their hunger for the Eucharist