next »

CatholiChat

Bible

Catechism

Catholic Encyclopedia

Today's Readings

Advanced search

[SusanS]

What do you say when one priest contradicts another?  For example, two people marry outside the Church, one non-practicing Catholic, one divorced Protestant.  After many, many years of marriage, the Catholic returns to the Church and wants to receive the Sacraments again.  One priest says the Protestant must get their first marriage declared null by the Church, and then they must get married in the Church.  The other priest says it is not necessary, that all those years of marriage and their raised children prove that the marriage was/is valid and all that is needed is for the Catholic to go to confession and resume practicing the faith.  Who is right?

[David NJ]

Go to the Catechism. That and Scripture are the final words on any issue. 

[Terence IRL]

Unfortunately Susan, the Catechism doesn't cover Canon Law, though Canon Law is based on the Teachings of Christ.

You said one party is a non-practising Catholic. That in itself states that the person is a Catholic, because once a Catholic always a Catholic - even if one stops practising the Faith. The fact that the 'marriage' was outside the Church automatically nullifies it - it is an invalid marriage because the obligation on ALL catholics, even non pratcising Catholics is that they must marry within the Church, and there are no exceptions to this.

An Application to the Marriage Tribunal in this case is necessary to establish a valid impediment on the marriage of the Protestant party. Until such time as this is done, the Catholic party is excluded from the Eucharist, since that party is comitting Adultery. Confession on it's own will not resolve the situation they are now in.

It is well to remember, that just because the Protestant party is divorced, that in itself does not prove that their marriage is invalid. Divorce is not a ground on which the Tribunal determines Nullity or Validity. It merely shows that the parties have little or no hope of reconciling their marriage relationship. A Declaration of Nullity is not a right.

It appears that the second Priest was gravely mistaken in his view.

[E James]

For Terence IRL:  I know someone who was a non practising catholic-got married outside the church-got divorced and said they went and got it annuled (declaration of nullity).  Just to clarify:  The declaration would be unnecesary if it was never valid at the start?

[Terence IRL]

James - the Church considers all church marriages to be valid until proven otherwise. The reason why an application to the Tribunal is necessary, is to 'certify' for the want of a better word, that the perceived 'marriage' is in fact invalid. That has to be established formally by the Tribunal, before a person can properly and validly marry within the Church.

The apparent ease with which your 'friend' obtained a declaration of "Invalid ab initio", was because he/she was married outside the Church. Once that has been established, then there is no further argument about validity.

A declaration can only be based on an impediment existing prior to the marriage - these can vary from case to case. A catholic entering into a civil contract or marrying in another church is an impediment in itself, and therefore renders that 'marriage' invalid - but it must still be dealt with by the Tribunal, to at least enable the person to both return to the Eucharist, and clear the way for a future valid marriage.

I hope this clarifies it.

[E James]

For Terence:   It does help.  As far as the ease in witch they got it I really don't know.  Wasn't close enough to know how long it took.  The topic just got me wondering about such things.  If the catholic church considers all church marriages to be valid until proven otherwise then: a catholic getting married in a protestant church is considered in a valid marriage until proven otherwise.  If no one attempts to prove otherwise then it would remain and be considered valid.  How does this affect participation in the church?
     If the church is saying once we see proof(marriage license) then it is automatically not valid.  This strikes me as a "Don't ask-don't tell" like in the military.  It also strikes me as two standards being used, one for protestants getting married and one for when there is a catholic involved when the marriage is in a protestant church.  Seems like the requirements for valid or not should be the same for all. 
               Peace

[Terence IRL]

James - if two non-Catholics marry in a non-catholic church, the Catholic Church works on the presumption that it is a valid marriage, because a contract between a man and a woman entering into an indisoluble Covenant with God, witnessed by minister of that Church makes that marriage valid yet illict (non-Sacramental). To have that marriage declared invalid, the couple must prove an impediment existed prior to entering the Covenant. That requirement of proof also applies to Catholics.

However, the same presumption of a valid marriage does not apply if a Catholic marries outside the Church, as in the example you first gave.

There is a difference between an illicit valid marriage and a valid Sacramental Marriage. Essentially, the difference being that one is Sacramental (which is only available in the Catholic Church) and the other is not Sacramental. Hence the requirement of a Catholic to marry in a Catholic Church.

To a point, one could say there are two standards - but they have not been set or created by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church remains faithful and true to the Standard set by Christ. The same, unfortunately, can't be said of other chruches.

As for the time duration in a final decision being made, this varies from one Tribunal to another, depending on their workload and efficiency. A two year period for a final decision would not be uncommon.

[SusanS]

The comments are very informative.  Thank you.  I understand valid, illicit, Sacramental, et cetera.  So, please one or two more questions, or rather, a request for comment:

If this person is in a non-valid marriage (a Catholic married to a divorced Protestant in a civil ceremony over 25 years ago), what happens if the Catholic wants to return to the Church and the Protestant spouse does not believe that the required tribunal process is necessary and will not go through with it, which will obviously include having the prior marriage of the Protestant examined for validity?

Since the Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments, what about attending Mass, and in general, living a Catholic life?  To what avail?  What about longing for the Eucharist? 

It seems that the Catholic will be faced with a decision to either continue living in an invalid marriage, without the Sacraments (and in mortal sin?) or to end the 25 year old marriage in order to return to grace and the Sacraments. 

[Terence IRL]

Susan - If the non-catholic refuses to apply for an investigation to determine the validity or non-validity of their mariage, then there is little the Tribunal can do in that situation. That being said, both parties sadly remain in a state of Adultery.

It must always be remembered, the outcome of a Tribunal enquiry is not guaranteed to be a favourable one - a declaration of nullity is not a right, or a foregone conclusion, (unlike a civil divorce) it is the end result of an intensive investigation.

There is absolutley nothing preventing a person from attending Mass while being excommunicated from the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Indeed the Church engourages people in that situation to continue to pray and seek the Grace needed to return fully to the Sacraments.

I think your last paragraph contains the answer to your question, with one exception - neither party is in a 'marriage' - it is what it is, a 25 year old Adulterous relationship, and the choice the catholic must make (and indeed the non-catholic) is, which is more important for his/her Soul - Christ or Adultery.

[E James]

For Terence:  Good morning or good afternoon if you're reading this in the afternoon.
     So far you're quite informative.  I'm finding this area interesting.  So if a catholic gets married in a protestant church it is automatically invalid.  For the catholic it will not be a marriage unless it is a sacramental marriage- correct?  This does make sense as to why the church requires catholics to get married in the church.  I'm not sure why they bother going through the paperwork on something that won't be considered valid under any cricumstance, but oh well.
      Okay and back to the other couple (protestants).  They get married in a protestant church.  Down the road one becomes catholic.  Using the only marriages in the catholic church are sacramental and the protestant marriage is considered "illicit" are they/should they now get a sacramental marriage?  It would seem like the desire of the catholic church would be to have all married couples in the church be in sacramental marriages and not "illicit" ones.
      Thank you for the time you're spending.  Peace.

[Ed NY]

... if two non-Catholics marry in a non-catholic church, the Catholic Church works on the presumption that it is a valid marriage, because a contract between a man and a woman entering into an indisoluble Covenant with God, witnessed by minister of that Church makes that marriage valid yet illict (non-Sacramental).

Terence, from this URL,

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

we seem to read that a valid matrimonial contract between two baptized non-Catholics is a Sacrament.

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

Can.  1055 §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Isn't that correct?

Thanks.

[E James]

Hi Ed NY:  Interesting post.  I've only been a catholic for five years so there is much to learn.  I hope I'm not the only one who doesn't have a complete grasp of this topic.   Peace

[Ed NY]

Hi James,

Nice to meet you. Yes, Canon Law is very interesting and as Terence said, it is based on Scriptures.

Last night, I found out that it is in the transcripts of the Twenty-Fourth (24th) Session of the Council of Trent where the Decree Concerning The Reform Of Matrimony is discussed.

If you're interested, here is a URL

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT24.HTM

Thanks.
Ed

[Terence IRL]

James -dealing with your first paragraph: The reason the Tribunal needs to make a declaration in such cases is to give formal/official recognition on the 'marriage' being invalid.

Can 1085 §2 Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty.

With regard to the second paragraph: As I said earlier, the marriage already carries with it the presumption of being Valid. If one party decides to become Catholic then the only thing which is recommended but is not obligatory or governed by Canon Law, is that the couple have their marriage blessed, by a Priest. They can not enter into a 'second' marriage, or a 're-marriage'.

You're absolutely right, both Christ and the Church would love to have every human being in His Church.

[Terence IRL]

Ed, I'd like you to show me precisely where you have read that ".... a valid matrimonial contract between two baptized non-Catholics is a Sacrament."

Can.  1055 §2. as does all Canon Law, deals with Catholics. Perhaps you would show me the relevant Canon which deals with non-catholic marriages.