What Marriages Does the Church Consider Valid?: On the Road with a Canonist
By - Posted on July 18, 2012
A Look at Marriage Validity
This past weekend, my husband, three children, my mother-in-law and I were traveling home after a weekend away where we had attended a friend’s wedding. My saintly petite mother-in-law had willing folded herself into the back of the car with the children between boxes, garment bags, and luggage, happily chatting, brokering peace, and watching movies with them, which freed my husband and I to enjoy a five-hour conversation in the front seat.
With the length of Lake Michigan’s coast ahead of us and plenty of time to reflect on the weekend, my thoughts naturally turned to the Church and weddings. This happens to be an area of expertise for my canonist husband, so I hoped that he wouldn’t mind if I asked him some canonical questions about the Church’s view of different types of marriages. He was more than happy to oblige—in fact, I think I might have caught a twinkle of excitement in his eye when I mentioned the code—so I quickly took out my laptop to record his answer on the following question: What types of marriages does the Church view as valid? Because, like my husband always tells me, just like you can’t baptize with Pepsi, you need certain aspects of the ceremony to be present for the sacrament to take place, depending on who’s getting married. My husband, with great enthusiasm, laid out the following marriage scenarios and the Church’s take on them.
-Two Catholics with canonical form
To satisfy canonical form, a priest or deacon must ask for and receive the marrying parties’ consent in the name of the Church in the presence of at least two witnesses. In most cases, this will be done in a church or oratory, however it’s not required to satisfy canonical form. For example, John and Suzie, both baptized Catholics, are married during a wedding Mass. The Church considers this marriage to be valid and sacramental, due to the baptisms of both spouses.
A note on canonical form: when two Catholics marry, canonical form is required, though in very rare cases the Holy See can dispense the parties from the requirement of form.
-One Catholic marrying one baptized non-Catholic Christian with canonical form
Only Catholics are bound by canonical form. Therefore, even if only one marrying party is Catholic, canonical form is still required. (However, in this situation it would be possible to receive a dispensation from canonical form from the local ordinary.) Also, in this instance, the Catholic party must make the additional promise to do all in his or her power to baptise and raise the children Catholic, and the non-Catholic party must informed of this promise, which is usually done during the pre-nuptial investigation by the priest. An example of this would be if Catholic Mary married Protestant Calvin in the Catholic church. This would be a valid—and therefore sacramental, due to the parties’ baptisms—marriage.
-One Catholic and one non-baptized person with canonical form
The Church would recognize as valid this type of marriage only if the Catholic party had received a dispensation for disparity of worship from the local ordinary (the bishop of that diocese, vicar general, or episcopal vicar) and had made the promise to raise the children Catholic. This would not be a sacramental marriage, however, because both parties are not baptised. An example of this would be if Catholic Elizabeth received a dispensation to marry unbaptized Stan in the Catholic church. Also, as in the above situation, it would be possible to receive a dispensation from canonical form from the local ordinary.
-Two Protestants before their minister or justice of the peace
The Church would recognize this marriage as valid because as they are not Catholic, the marrying parties are not bound by canonical form. Any time there are two baptized people who have a valid marriage, it is ipso facto a sacrament. An example of this would be if baptized Methodist Jane married baptized but now agnostic Zack before the justice of the peace. This would be both valid and sacramental, due to the baptisms of the marrying parties.
-One Protestant and one unbaptized person before a minister or justice of the peace
The Church would consider this to be a valid marriage but not a sacrament because both parties are not baptized. An example: Baptized Lutheran Luke married unbaptized Holly on the beach before a minister.
-Two unbaptized people before a minister or justice of the peace
This again would be considered a valid marriage but not a sacrament. An example of this type of marriage would be if two Muslims were married in a traditional Muslim wedding ceremony.
Finally, a quick note on semel Catholicus, semper Catholicus (once Catholic, always Catholic):
My husband would like to note that currently if you were baptized (or received into the Catholic Church) you are bound by canonical form, even if you have since fallen away from the practice of the faith. Between 1983 and April 2009, one could make an act of formal defection from the Catholic Church, but it could only be done in writing and necessarily was an act of heresy, apostasy, or schism. After defecting, a Catholic was no longer bound to canonical form. This type of formal defection, though, was rare and is no longer possible. Benedict XVI changed this to reflect the principle of semel Catholicus, semper Catholicus. Therefore, currently, even if a baptized Catholic were to fall away from the faith, he would still be bound by canon law and would need to marry within the Church for his marriage to be valid.
If you have any questions, please feel free to write!
Copyright 2012 Meg Matenaer
What about baptized as infants but raised in a different faith? Are they still bound by canon law even though they were never brought up as Catholics but baptized as such?
Thanks!
Hi! Thanks for your question. Here’s what my husband said:
Yes, anyone baptized or received into the Catholic Church is bound by canon law, even if he wasn’t raised in the faith. And this isn’t just about marriage law. It also includes holy days, fasting and abstinence, etc. These things are all laws. Semel catholicus, semper catholicus. Now, that’s the juridic side, but you might wonder morally what’s the person’s culpability. If he didn’t know he was Catholic, obviously he wouldn’t be culpable for breaking the laws that he didn’t know he was bound to.
A note: Even someone who’s been excommunicated is still Catholic, but just under a penalty, and would still be required to follow the laws (like attending Mass on Sunday) but under the penalty of not being able to receive the Eucharist.
Absurd. The Church is going to have to make some sense out of these rules. From my youth, when people could civilly marry and divorce five previous wives and join the Church and marry again without even examining the unions, to the many years where the Church respected the conscience and considered unions of fallen Catholics to be as valid as Protestant ones (which caused problems for some who wanted to return to Catholicism), to now, where the flick of a pen binds countless children of former Catholics. Absurd. Baptism is baptism, no matter where. Marriage should be marriage, and sacramental marriage sacramental marriage, and canonical form shouldn’t be the main determinant of validity. It’s all a big tangled mess.
What’s absurd? Is it absurd that the successor of Peter can issue laws for valid marriage? Or do you mean to say that the current laws in force are absurd?
I will now respond to the scenarios you mention. Regarding the situation in which (I presume) a Catholic civilly marries five times then comes to the Church to marry in canonical form, it should be clear from the article above, that all of his previous civil marriages were never really marriages at all. Therefore, he’s still free to marry canonically, though we can say that a man who knowingly and deliberately does this is committing fornication. Or, are you referring to the Pauline privilege?
Regarding your second scenario, I presume that you are referring to the period of time from 1983-April 9 2010 during which a Catholic could make a formal act of defection and be no longer bound by canonical form. This was so rare, that it almost never happened because it required a written letter to competent ecclesiastical authority.
Regarding the third scenario where you speak of the “flick of the pen”, it isn’t so much the pen as the sacramental reality that a child has been washed free of original sin and enters Christ’s body in the visible confines of the Catholic Church. Yes, this is a very serious act with ever-lasting ramifications, and it is one that ought not to be taken lightly. Perhaps those engaged in baptismal preparation could be more clear about the beautiful, salvific, and juridic consequences of that act.
Regarding your concluding thoughts, it might be helpful to recall that the laws of the Church exist for the salvation of souls. This isn’t only true for marriage law, but includes the laws on fasting, the laws on Mass attendance, and even the laws on excommunication. There was an explicit decision made some five hundred years ago that Catholics must marry with canonical form in order to safeguard the sacrament and prevent invalid and secret marriages. Otherwise, a man could throw a woman on his horse, ride into the woods, pledge his love to her, exchange vows in private, consummate, then ride back into town the next morning claiming he never married her.
Yes, to be Catholic means to obey these laws. Sometimes this is difficult and sometimes this may seem to be a “tangled mess”; however, if Catholics just followed laws on marriage, things would be a lot simpler.
Hi, Mary! I forgot to mention that the above comment was from my husband.
I could tell!
(that it was from your husband),
No, it is not absurd that the Church has laws about marriage validity. But the nature of something should stem from it, not from some changeable factor. The validity of a Catholic marriage should stem from the nature of marriage and from the nature of a Catholic sacrament).
As to the other points, a bit of historical info is in order. It is not true that the situation of someone formally leaving the faith was rare. As a matter of fact, the question of what was necessary to do that has been much debated among theologians and canonists. And most marriages undertaken by fallen-away or never-raised-but-batpized-Catholics were treated as valid marriages (which was sometimes convenient and often very inconvenient to the person returning to the faith).
In the distant past, in practice, previous unions of divorced people who converted were often ignored (sort of a streamlined automatic Pauline privilege), and Fallen away Catholics who came back had all their marriages ignored also….with no human respect or awareness shown their families. For instance, a fallen away Catholic could marry and have a family, then have an affair with a Catholic and revert to marry her and voila, his other marriage didn’t exist. Not exactly justice, even if technically canonical. (Similar things happend when people wanted to convert). It was to rectify this injustice that the previous ordinance to the current one was put in place, which treated the consciences of “former” (in their consciences) Catholics with respect.
It is absurd to say that an unknowingly Catholic child raised Protestant does not have a valid marriage if he or she does not marry according to Catholic form. This papal ordinance is a discipline. He was trying to correct one injustice and ends up creating a whole new one.
What does it mean to be a Catholic with a non-Sacramental marriage? My husband and I were married in the Church and he is not baptized. How does our marriage in the eyes of the Church differ from others? It has been many years since we did our pre-cana classes & were married, but I can’t remember this being discussed with us by the Deacon or priest. Thanks.
Hi, Lisa! Thanks for your question. Here’s what my husband said:
This would be a valid marriage, but not a sacramental one. It still is a true marriage, the only difference is that you would not receive sacramental grace. However, it is safe to say that you would still receive the actual grace to be a good spouse. (Actual grace is the grace given at the moment of making a moral action.)
I hope that helps–please write if you have any additional questions!
If I am not mistaken, there has been a theological dispute about this kind of case. I have heard that some theologians hold that the Catholic party receives the grace of the sacrament in a marriage with a non-baptized person. I might be wrong but I think this is the case. It is not, however, an issue yet decided by the Church.
Hi, Sky! Thanks for your question. Here’s what my husband said:
Whether there are some who say that, I don’t know. But I’ve never heard any canonist say that. The reason that a Catholic marrying a non-baptized does not receive sacramental grace is because in order for a sacrament to take place, both parties must be baptized. It’s important to distinguish here what is the sacrament. The sacrament is not the parties involved. Rather, the sacrament is the union between them. There is only one sacrament, not two. It is not a question still left open to debate. That’s the law of the Church.
Helpful article! I’ll keep this information handy, should a friend ever need it.
Thanks, Rhonda! I’ve learned so much about the Church through my husband’s studies, and I am continually in awe of the wisdom and truth and beauty and mercy of her laws.
Everyone should know that if one is divorced and wishes to remarry in the Catholic Church, one will need a declaration of nullity from their first marriage. That includes non-Catholics.
Although, divorced persons should be aware that without a declaration of nullity, they are still married in the eyes of God and should not be entering into any relationship that is inappropriate to a married person. No dating.
So I have a question: I’m an Anglican with strong Catholic tendencies and I love the Catholic Church. I respect her canon law and moral code immensely. And i want to make sure I’m doing the right thing: I met my girlfriend, who I intend to marry next year, back in 2010. She has two kids, but I thought she was just single. It wasn’t until about 2 months after I met her that I learned she was divorced. By that time, I was kind of hooked to her and have obviously only grown more in love with her.
My girlfriend was not baptized when she was married by a justice of the peace to a Catholic (in the loosest sense of the word) man (again in the loosest sense of the word.) This man in the course of their marriage, raped her twice.
In my tradition, such an act invalidates the marriage and the offended party is free to marry again.
My question than is two part, was her marriage valid? It seems that it probably was based on your article. But is it alright for her to remarry in the eyes of the Church? Please don’t sugar coat your answer…I want to know the truth.
The marriage is invalid but needs to be declared so. In other words, these facts need to be taken to you local priest, and he knows what to do. The Catholic spouse did not marry according to form, so that marriage would be invalid.
Also, my GF was baptized last Summer. I know we’re Anglicans and not Catholics, so you might see her baptism differently, but we believe as the Scriptures teach, that all of her sins actual and original, were wiped out at that moment. Does that affect the marriage question?
Hi, Billy! Thanks for your question (and your patience–I had to wait to respond until my husband got back from work today
. Regarding your girlfriend and her previous marriage to the Catholic man, here’s the bottom line: in the eyes of the Catholic Church, presuming that the parties did not receive a dispensation from canonical form or disparity of worship, She would presume it to be invalid because a Catholic must marry in canonical form.
God bless!
The Baptism was a valid Baptism, of course, but it does not change the status of her prior union, which was invalid by virtue of the fact that the other party was a Catholic marrying “outside the Church” (to use an expression). The Catholic pastor, as I said, can help you and will know the simple steps to take. And, of course, she committed no sin in marrying, because she was unaware of the Catholic party’s obligations.
In the eyes of the Church, and God, your girlfriend is still married. As she married a Catholic outside of the Church, it would be considered “Lack of Form.” I would recommend contacting a Catholic Priest or the Chancellors Office in your local Diocese and requesting a declaration of nullity due to Lack of Form. If she had been married in the Church, her request would have had to go to the Pope due to her not being baptized at the time. A determination on a declaration of nullity is mostly looking at the circumstances surrounding the time of the marriage, not so much on what happens during the marriage. Marriage is considered a valid Sacrament unless there is a reason why it could not have been a Sacrament. In your girlfriends case, a Lack of Form decision usually takes about two weeks and costs nothing. Neither of you are Catholic so you need to look at your own consciences to determine what you believe about her first marriage. If you ever chose to become Catholic (and I highly recommend it ) you would need to resolve this situation. Bottom line is that your girlfriend is married.
I think you meant to say “invalid” in the first sentence.
Lack of canonical form for a Catholic invalidates a marriage. His girlfriend married a Catholic without canonical form. She is NOT still married, but this needs to be taken to the Church for a declaration because we are not the ones who decide.
Hi, a note on this from my husband:
One’s freedom to marry in a lack of form case is not technically dependent on a declaration from a Catholic tribunal. Rather, any Catholic priest/deacon preparing someone for marriage can himself make this determination. However, in a great many dioceses, it is a diocesan policy that lack of form cases go through the tribunal.
P.S. Your girlfriends baptism would have wiped her sin up until that date. It does not invalidate her marriage.
I appreciate your comments. But while you’re correct in pointing to the lack of form, there was no promise to raise the children Catholic and nothing of a dispensation from any ministerial authority. The article says that the marriage is valid “only’ if that was done.
On the question of nullification, which I would certainly seek in any event, I’ve been told that things hidden from one party in the marriage that reveal themselves in the course of the marriage, are cause for nullification. That is why I mentioned he raped her twice. That doesn’t just happen…that’s a part of a lifestyle of sexual deviancy.
Thank you for the post, I find canon law fascinating. I do have a question for your husband. I was baptized as an infant in the Russian Orthodox tradition. My parents left the Orthodox church for a Protestant church when I was about 12 years old . My husband was baptized in a Baptist church as an adult. We married in a Protestant church, and four years later we both became Catholic. I learned afterwards that I had a valid baptism, and confirmation in the Orthodox church and that I really only needed to make a profession of faith and confession to enter the Catholic church (although I did go through RCIA and was given a Catholic confirmation at the Easter vigil). Would the same Catholic lack of form rules would apply to one in my situation? Even though I belonged to a schismatic (Eastern Orthodox) church they do have valid sacraments, and I was baptized, confirmed, and receiving Holy Communion for years. If so, would we need to have our marriage blessed by a priest? Anyway, I know it is an odd ball question, but I would appreciate any help you could give me.
God bless.
Hi, Rachel! Thank you for your question. Here’s what my husband said: because the Orthodox Church does have valid sacraments and a valid episcopacy, it’s very possible that it might have its own laws regarding necessary form for the validity of the marriage sacrament. My husband is less familiar with the laws of the Orthodox Church, so he recommends bringing your case to your local tribunal so that they can look into it for you. And if it is in fact the case that you did not satisfy the form needed for a valid marriage, your marriage would be considered invalid. However, as you’re both Catholic now, you would simply need to exchange consent (to marriage) before a priest to validate your marriage. Hope this helps! God bless!
On another site a man had a question which has perplexed me: The man and his wife are/were Catholic, married in a Catholic church. Now living in the Middle East, the wife has decided to convert to Islam. Under the rules of Islam, a muslim woman cannot be married to a non-muslim man (though a muslim man is permitted to marry outside his faith). Since the wife will convert, the Catholic husband was informed that after a certain grace period, his marriage to his wife will no longer be valid unless he converts as well. The husband will not convert but is unsure if his marriage will be valid.
Hi, DB,
Thanks for your question. Since my husband’s away for a few days, I’ll have to take this one
To answer your question, I’ll refer you to my husband’s response to the first comment raised by deltaflute in which he describes the phrase semel Catholicus, semper Catholicus (or once Catholic, always Catholic).
Regarding the woman in your question, if she and her husband were both baptized Catholics and they married in the Church, their marriage is presumed valid until death due them part, of course
The woman’s later conversion to Islam has no bearing on their marriage, and it should be remembered that due to her baptism in the faith, she is still bound by canon law (for instance, she is still bound to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days, etc.). I will also direct you to my husband’s reply to Mary on the gravity of baptism.
Hope this helps! God bless!
I’ve been invited to a convalidation ceremony and I’m just looking for some help to understand how all this works. I feel uneasy about going.
Two baptized Catholics met and fell in love. The woman was divorced and awaiting an annulment. The process took longer than either of them liked so they decided to just go ahead and get married (not sure if it was a civil ceremony or a different faith) with the hopes of one day being able to have their marriage blessed in a Catholic church. They lived together as husband and wife. Fast forward one year and the annulment was granted. They continued to live together as husband and wife. Now fast-forward six months and they’re planning a convalidation ceremony.
Am I being judgmental here or am I right to be concerned about attending?
Thank you for this article! I’ve learned so much.
Dianna, thank you for your question. My wife, Meg, asked me to respond directly. As you can tell from above, unless there has been a dispensation from canonical form, the civil union you describe above is invalid due to “lack of form.” And, you can be about 99% sure that they did not receive the necessary dispensation because the dispensation from canonical form for two Catholics is reserved to the Holy See. So, to summarize, there was no marriage whatsoever.
Now that a declaration of nullity has been given, both parties are free to marry. What people often refer to as a “convalidation” or a “blessing” of the marriage is actually the marriage ritual itself. The parties (who may have been living together and who may have been civilly married) are now marrying for the first time. They are exchanging consent for the first time in proper form, entering into the sacrament of marriage. It is like you are attending any other wedding, and actually should be a very joyous celebration. Yes, they should not have been living together, but now they are correcting that error and doing the right thing.
On a pastoral note, sometimes it is hard for us to be happy for people in this situation. Didn’t they scorn the Church and her laws by getting civilly married before the declaration of nullity was granted? Haven’t they been living in manifest grave sin (c. 915) all these years? But, now that they have freely chosen to marry in the Church, they are like the prodigal son, whose Father rejoices at their return and wishes to hold a feast. And now you, get to actually play the part of the older brother and make the decision whether or not to rejoice at their return and to enter the house to join in the celebration.
Thank you so much for your response. I really appreciate your explanation and your guidance. It was what I needed to hear. Blessings.
I would add that we should let the Church handle these things. She has decided that they are able to be married, and is offering a convalidation (which can make their marriage actually valid back to the root, when they first exchanged consent). It is the Church who is judge of the sacraments, not us.
Mary Ann, you are right. I clearly needed to have a better, more loving perspective and I appreciate your help in that.
I have been following this post since it’s inception 6 months ago, and I have to tell you, this is one of the few posts I have ever read that makes me upset.
My un-baptized husband and I married 18 yrs. ago. We never had to go to the bishop to ask for anything and we had a Catholic MASS for our wedding.
Fast forward 18 yrs. We have 3 beautiful children being raised Catholic, we go to Church as a family every Sunday. Though my husband cannot receive the Eucharist, he participates in every other part of Mass. I am a Catechist, and my husband helps out every Sunday with the setting up and breaking down of the CCD classrooms.
Yet, according to your blog, I’ve been living a LIE. Even though we are living as any other Catholic family, we are not allowed the same grace a “Christmas and Easter” couple with kids who come “once in a while” to CCD is? They are favored more in God’s eyes, though we try just as hard if not harder?
I’m not trying to make this into a “who gets more grace” contest, but it seems as if this original post does.
Dear Cathleen,
I am sorry to hear that this post is upsetting to you. My inkling is that there is some misunderstanding, which I hope I can clear up. I’ll try to do so here, but if I have misinterpreted your question, or if you have any follow-up questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.
I think I can discern three separate questions/issues here. 1) the dispensation from the impediment of disparity of worship, 2) the question of whether you are living a lie, and 3) the question of graces received. If I’ve got it wrong or if there are other questions, let me know.
Regarding the impediment of disparity of worship. As Meg correctly mentions above, in order for a Catholic to validly marry a non-baptized person, the Catholic party requires a dispensation from canon 1086. Even though you state that you never had to go ask the bishop for anything, if you were married by a priest or deacon, I am 99% sure that this dispensation was obtained on your behalf by the priest or deacon who prepared you for marriage. Very rarely would a couple know that this dispensation has been granted, since it is taken care of on their behalf. Yet, it was almost certainly granted nonetheless. So, I wouldn’t worry about that.
Regarding the question of whether or not you are living a lie, I guess (though I may be wrong) that you think that since you never went to the bishop, then your marriage is not valid and therefore you are living a lie. But, as I point out above, this isn’t true. So, almost certainly you ARE in a valid marriage and therefore, the love that you and your husband mutually give and receive is a sign of God’s love for all mankind. You are evangelizing the world simply by living out the truth of your marriage vows. And that’s BEAUTIFUL.
Finally, I admit I do not completely understand your third question. Are you saying that you feel you are less favored in God’s eyes or getting less grace because of your marital situation? As I point out above, you are almost certainly in a valid marriage, and so your marriage is as valid and true as any other.
But, I would be very happy to continue this conversation and answer any other questions you have. Or maybe I’ve completely missed what you were saying, in which case, please do correct me. Working in a marriage tribunal, I find that lots of people get upset because no one has ever done a good job of explaining things to them. And, as a teacher at heart, I will always go the extra mile to clear up any confusion.
Blessings in Christ,
Paul M. Matenaer, MTS, JCL
Thank you for the reply. It does clear up the “dispensation” concern (since I had never really heard of this issue before).
I know that in God’s eyes I have a “valid” marriage, but what I’m getting stuck on is the whole Sacrament of Matrimony.
When we were married, we had a full Catholic Mass (not just a ceremony). Doesn’t this mean that I received the Sacrament of Matrimony, and therefore sacramental grace? Isn’t sacramental grace more favorable in God’s eyes than actual grace?
Every year as I teach CCD and we go over the chapters on Sacraments, I’ve been telling the kids that I received 5 sacraments so far (Baptism, Penance, Eucharist, Confirmation, and Matrimony). I even wrote it down in my Bible. Is this wrong? Have I been lying to others (and myself, unknowingly) thinking that I’ve had the Sacrament of Matrimony, when really all we did was celebrate a Catholic Mass?
I hope you can help. I am catholic married one time and now divorced. My ex husband is Episopal. He was married and divorced prior to our marriage. We were married in the Episcopal church not the catholic church. Is my previous marriage recognized? I hope to remarry some day and in my own faith. He never had his first marriage annulled. We didn’t get married in my church because my priest wouldn’t marry us because he was Episcopal and married before.
Hi, Jamie! Thanks for writing. Meg here, as my husband is out of town for the day.
I encourage you to get in touch with your local tribunal by contacting your diocesan center and bring your case to them. I think you will find that it’s a pretty straight forward process and they would find that since you are a baptized Catholic and you were married without canonical form and without a dispensation to do so (I’m assuming) that your marriage is null. They would be happy to help you with any questions you might have.
God bless you as you continue your walk with Him-
Meg
I am catholic who married to a non catholic man more an 7 years ago. He was previously married to a woman who was married before and divorced. They are both non catholic also, but baptized in other churches. Was the marriage of my husband valid then? (We met with the priest at my church in that time, and we told him everything about our situation), I never was told anything about this and the church allowed me to Mary my now husband. He has been taking the RCIA classes for a long period now, and now they arenquestioning if our marriage is valid or not. I’m completely confused and sad, because I have been very happy ever since I marry my husband, and now that he wants to become a catholic we are finding these questions.
Thanks for your help.
Hi, Carola! Thanks for writing, and I`m sorry to only be getting back to you now. I`m still trying to catch up about this with my husband during a slow spell at work, so I`ll be getting back to you soon! Thanks for your patience!
Hi Carola,
I am Meg’s husband, the canonist mentioned in her blog above, and I would be happy to answer any and all of your questions. From the information you provided, I will give my best guess, but without seeing all of the paperwork itself, I cannot tell you conclusively. If you had a priest or deacon officiate your marriage to your husband 7 years ago, it is very probable that it was a valid marriage and you have no need to worry about it. So, my first piece of advice is not to feel confused or sad. Now, let’s see if we can unravel this puzzle.
If I understand the situation, you (a Catholic) married a non-Catholic 7 years ago. Let’s call your husband, Mario. Mario, however, was married before that to a woman, who we will call Princess. but Princess was married before that to a man who we will call Bowser.
Canon law presumes that marriages are valid (c. 1060). Therefore, we would presume that Bowser’s marriage to Princess is valid. This means, then, that Princess’ marriage to Mario would be presumed to be invalid on the ground of “ligamen” or prior bond. Consequently, then, Mario is not married to princess, which meant that he was free to marry you 7 years ago. This is the thought process that the priest/deacon who witnessed your marriage 7 years ago would have gone through.
Therefore, if I understand it all correctly, there is a legal presumption that you and your husband (Mario) are validly married.
And, if I can go a step further and be a bit more bombastic, you can tell the person in charge of RCIA at your parish that your marriage to Mario has the favor of the law (c. 1060) and that only the parties themselves or the Promoter of Justice can impugn that marriage. Since neither you nor your husband want to impugn that marriage and since there is no notorious reason why the Promoter of Justice would do so, the RCIA director can back off.
If you have any further questions, or if I haven’t quite gotten it right, don’t hesitate to ask. I’m happy to help.
Thank you very much for your kind and honest answer. My husband and I were married by a Monsignor in fact, and we already put all the paperwork together for the deacon in charge of the RCIA, and with the all information you just gave us makes everything easier to understand and explain.
Thanks again
Now I’m wondering… was my marriage valid?
I married at the age of 20 and divorced 22 years later. I married a non practicing Catholic who really was an Agnostic long before I met him. I on the other hand was an evangelical Baptist who also had strayed away. We were married by the Justice of the peace and that was it.
As i read this blog, I wonder if my marriage was ever valid?
Hi, Maggie! Thanks for writing. Yes, so if your husband is a baptized Catholic and was married by a justice of the peace, unless he received a dispensation from the bishop from canonical form (which would be unlikely in this circumstance), it would be a simple lack of form case and your marriage would be invalid. If you want to make sure, though, you could always get in contact with your diocesan tribunal. Hope this helps! Peace, Meg