Divorce Question

[Michie]

It does not matter. An annulment is only needed when both partners are alive.

But my mother's still alive.

 

[chevyontheriver]

My 'dad' passed away before we joined the Catholic Church. When I asked about the validity of their marriage, I was told that it was valid. Nothing more was said. Mom was received into the Church at the same time I was (with no annulment process). So yeah...I'm confused.

Oh. If your dad has died the marriage is over and no point in an annulment. Without a formal annulment process you can't be absolutely sure that marriage was valid, but since it is definitely over now, your mother was free to marry again. Whether or not the first marriage was valid. Sorry but I presumed both of them were still alive.

On a side note, rather unrelated, an excommunication only applies while a person is alive. Once they die, the excommunication is null and void. It does not follow them to the grave. God has more mercy and justice anyhow.

 

[Gnarwhal]

My 'dad' passed away before we joined the Catholic Church. When I asked about the validity of their marriage, I was told that it was valid. Nothing more was said. Mom was received into the Church at the same time I was (with no annulment process). So yeah...I'm confused.

If that's the case then the marriage would be valid.

I was curious about this a little while ago cause my parents have given hints that they're thinking about converting eventually.

My dad was married for a couple years in the early 70s, and then his first wife ran off with their daughter and divorce was filed. Six years later he met my mom and they got married, they've been married for 37 years now. I asked a canon lawyer once if their marriage was valid and he said no, but then my dad's first wife passed away 2-3 years ago, making my parents marriage valid in the Church's eyes and thus no annulment would be necessary if they were to convert.

 

[SaNcTaMaRiA]

I have to say, Im impressed with your knowledge of the Catholic faith. Im impressed with the faith as well.......the attention to detail and set rules and laws to follow are amazing...and very unlike the protestant churches im used to.

What about a sinner wanting to become a Catholic.....who is in his second marriage with children......who left the first wife for no good reason at all (so the first would still be valid). Is there a concept of forgiveness of sins and walking anew....or would this sinner be forced to leave his current family before being allowed to enter the church?

Why would you leave a marriage for no good reason at all?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have to say, Im impressed with your knowledge of the Catholic faith. Im impressed with the faith as well.......the attention to detail and set rules and laws to follow are amazing...and very unlike the protestant churches im used to.

What about a sinner wanting to become a Catholic.....who is in his second marriage with children......who left the first wife for no good reason at all (so the first would still be valid). Is there a concept of forgiveness of sins and walking anew....or would this sinner be forced to leave his current family before being allowed to enter the church?

Oh that's tricky. If there was no good reason why the marriage was not valid, then the first marriage stands as the real one. The second one cannot be valid in that case, and there is a state of continuing adultery going on. So he has three choices, not all of them equal. He can go back to his first wife, if possible. He can separate from his second wife and live alone. Or he can stay with his second wife and live like her brother, maybe in a separate bedroom, most likely in a separate bed, as legally married but only as friends, not friends with benefits. Otherwise the continuing adultery thing would prevent him from receiving the Eucharist, at least as long as the first wife lived.

Since there are children involved, and there would be a grave injustice to separate from them, it might be best to follow the last option. Particularly if there are small children. But then the initial divorce would have also been an injustice, so justice might require him going back to his first real wife. If she would have him. In a situation like this a lot of people stand to be hurt. He would have to consider all of them. His new wife, his original real wife, all the children.

He should not be having sex with anyone not his real first validly married wife. If he does forego sex with anyone else, he can be forgiven, of course, and things may be messy, but he walks anew in his rather awkward situation. This isn't the normal answer you would expect society to give, because whatever anyone feels the need to do is OK with society. But Christian marriage is a sign of the permanence of the relationship of the Church to Jesus and Jesus to the Church. As such, if it is a real and valid marriage there is no undoing it as long as they both live. He has to give faithful witness to his first valid marriage. Either by going back to her, or separating from all others, or at least being chaste in living in the house of another woman.

The Church should be helpful to people in these sort of situations. Not to give a wink and a nod but to help them live with the things they have to do to get it right, or as close to right again as possible. None of the people involved should be excluded. He will have to make some changes though.

 

[Beloved2018]

It does not matter. An annulment is only needed when both partners are alive.

But she was never told that she needed to repent of adultery. By 'dad' I mean my stepdad.

 

[Beloved2018]

Oh. If your dad has died the marriage is over and no point in an annulment. Without a formal annulment process you can't be absolutely sure that marriage was valid, but since it is definitely over now, your mother was free to marry again. Whether or not the first marriage was valid. Sorry but I presumed both of them were still alive.

On a side note, rather unrelated, an excommunication only applies while a person is alive. Once they die, the excommunication is null and void. It does not follow them to the grave. God has more mercy and justice anyhow.

By 'dad' I mean my step-dad. My apologies. I seem to be causing all sorts of confusion. My step dad died before Mom was received into the Church. I asked about the state of her second marriage (i.e. was it valid?) and was told that it was. She was never called upon to make a confession or anything.

 

[Beloved2018]

If that's the case then the marriage would be valid.

I was curious about this a little while ago cause my parents have given hints that they're thinking about converting eventually.

My dad was married for a couple years in the early 70s, and then his first wife ran off with their daughter and divorce was filed. Six years later he met my mom and they got married, they've been married for 37 years now. I asked a canon lawyer once if their marriage was valid and he said no, but then my dad's first wife passed away 2-3 years ago, making my parents marriage valid in the Church's eyes and thus no annulment would be necessary if they were to convert.

Forgive my confusion. How can it be valid if it took place while his first wife was still alive?

 

[chevyontheriver]

But she was never told that she needed to repent of adultery. By 'dad' I mean my stepdad.

You have a complex family history. I confess to being confused.

By the way, whatever I say, take with a shaker of salt. Get confirmation from somewhere else too.

So if I have this right, the stepdad died. The original and abusive dad is still alive? Then she is still presumed to be married to him unless she can get an annullment that says otherwise. And if her marriage to him was not valid, there would be no adultery. But under the presumption that the first marriage was valid, it looks like there was adultery. She should discuss this at her next confession. I don't want to even hazard a guess.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Forgive my confusion. How can it be valid if it took place while his first wife was still alive?

It can be made valid. At least that's what I think he means. Valid from here on out rather than retroactive.

 

[Anhelyna]

Beloved

By this time you will have realised that things can get complicated and for advice about the validity or otherwise of a previous marriage a Canon Lawyer should be consulted.

Your priest should be able to put you in touch with the Marriage Tribunal for your Diocese - however since you are not one of the parties in this marriage I doubt whether they will give you more than general advice.

 

[Beloved2018]

So if I have this right, the stepdad died.

Yes.

The original and abusive dad is still alive?

Yes.

Then she is still presumed to be married to him unless she can get an annullment that says otherwise.

It would have been nice to have been told this before we joined. I kinda feel lied to as I specifically ask...but thank you.

And if her marriage to him was not valid, there would be no adultery. But under the presumption that the first marriage was valid, it looks like there was adultery. She should discuss this at her next confession. I don't want to even hazard a guess.

Thank you. That clears up a lot.

 

[Beloved2018]

It can be made valid. At least that's what I think he means. Valid from here on out rather than retroactive.

oh...okay

 

[Beloved2018]

Beloved

By this time you will have realised that things can get complicated and for advice about the validity or otherwise of a previous marriage a Canon Lawyer should be consulted.

Your priest should be able to put you in touch with the Marriage Tribunal for your Diocese - however since you are not one of the parties in this marriage I doubt whether they will give you more than general advice.

Yep. I'm definitely going to contact my bishop about this. But I wanted to start here and am finding everyone very informative and helpful. Thanks!

 

[RaymondG]

Oh that's tricky. If there was no good reason why the marriage was not valid, then the first marriage stands as the real one. The second one cannot be valid in that case, and there is a state of continuing adultery going on. So he has three choices, not all of them equal. He can go back to his first wife, if possible. He can separate from his second wife and live alone. Or he can stay with his second wife and live like her brother, maybe in a separate bedroom, most likely in a separate bed, as legally married but only as friends, not friends with benefits. Otherwise the continuing adultery thing would prevent him from receiving the Eucharist, at least as long as the first wife lived.

Since there are children involved, and there would be a grave injustice to separate from them, it might be best to follow the last option. Particularly if there are small children. But then the initial divorce would have also been an injustice, so justice might require him going back to his first real wife. If she would have him. In a situation like this a lot of people stand to be hurt. He would have to consider all of them. His new wife, his original real wife, all the children.

He should not be having sex with anyone not his real first validly married wife. If he does forego sex with anyone else, he can be forgiven, of course, and things may be messy, but he walks anew in his rather awkward situation. This isn't the normal answer you would expect society to give, because whatever anyone feels the need to do is OK with society. But Christian marriage is a sign of the permanence of the relationship of the Church to Jesus and Jesus to the Church. As such, if it is a real and valid marriage there is no undoing it as long as they both live. He has to give faithful witness to his first valid marriage. Either by going back to her, or separating from all others, or at least being chaste in living in the house of another woman.

The Church should be helpful to people in these sort of situations. Not to give a wink and a nod but to help them live with the things they have to do to get it right, or as close to right again as possible. None of the people involved should be excluded. He will have to make some changes though.

I have to say, I have a new found respect for Catholicism. The way the laws are set out and enforced uncompromisingly is admirable. Those adding the "but's" and "I think they would understand if"s only subtract from this. One should be all in or all out.

Thanks for the information. SomeOne mentioned a caveat of the first spouse sleeping with someone else.....Is this something that can make the first marriage void? Could it be as simple as just waiting for the first spouse to sleep with someone else and then one is free to participate in church with the second wife?

 

[RaymondG]

Why would you leave a marriage for no good reason at all?

Just a hypothetical, to get right to the point and avoid talks of the first marriage possibly being invalid. I wanted it to be clearly valid.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have to say, I have a new found respect for Catholicism. The way the laws are set out and enforced uncompromisingly is admirable. Those adding the "but's" and "I think they would understand if"s only subtract from this. One should be all in or all out.

Thanks for the information. SomeOne mentioned a caveat of the first spouse sleeping with someone else.....Is this something that can make the first marriage void? Could it be as simple as just waiting for the first spouse to sleep with someone else and then one is free to participate in church with the second wife?

Adultery does not invalidate a valid marriage. Lots of Protestants think it does, but they misunderstand the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. They even translate the one exception allowing divorce as 'except for adultery'. But the word 'inappropriate contentea' doesn't really mean that. It means literally 'except for sexual uncleanness'. Which could mean many things. In it's context it has to be understood as a technical point of Jewish law. My opinion is that it is an obvious exception for those who are too closely related to marry, basically an escape clause for incest, which fits the bill as sexual uncleanness quite accurately. That is something where a marriage could never be valid, and thus an out. But Jesus doesn't provide any other outs. He expects us to be faithful if we are married.

There is a rare 'Pauline Privilege' and an even rarer 'Petrine Privilege', there is an out for those Catholics who marry outside of the Church without bothering to get the approval of the bishop, and an out for those who cannot say a valid vow for reasons of psychological or intellectual deficiency. Not an out for adultery. One should try to forgive an adulterer and continue to live with them if they can straighten out and fly right. Perhaps they cannot. But that doesn't make a marriage invalid. Only things present at the time of the marriage will do that. So abuse or adultery or sickness or depression that show up later do not change the validity. But lies before the marriage, major immaturity, even a pattern of fornication beforehand might. For example, if the first spouse slept around a lot before they were married, it might be a pattern that was destined to show up again as adultery. It might be reason to say that spouse was incapable of fidelity, but from day one. Thus an invalid marriage. But absent that, adultery, while a nasty sin, does not invalidate a marriage. It may destroy a marriage but in itself it does not provide grounds for marrying again.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Forgive my confusion. How can it be valid if it took place while his first wife was still alive?

My parents marriage was not valid when the ex was still alive, since she's passed away it is now valid.

They're not Catholic though, so this hasn't been an issue for them. Had they wanted to convert they would've needed to address it.

If a person's prior marriage is valid, that ceases to matter if the spouse passes away. So even if someone gets divorced and the Church determines their marriage to be valid and thus they cannot remarry, if the spouse passes away then that union is over and they're free to marry in the Church.

This is why Henry VIII had Anne Boleyn executed, IIRC.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This is why Henry VIII had Anne Boleyn executed, IIRC.

Ah, but actually killing someone to get out of a marriage is a crime of it's own in canon law. ;-)

 

[Gnarwhal]

Ah, but actually killing someone to get out of a marriage is a crime of it's own in canon law. ;-)

I never said it was a good plan.

We all know ol' Hank was a heretical sociopath...