Author: Pete Vere

More Interesting Marriage/Annulment Questions From Readers

Joe emailed me the following interesting scenarios, which he had been discussing among friends. I thought might be fun to answer on the blog:

1. At the time of marriage, a couple seemingly has all the requirements of a valid marriage, including both persons’ intentions to have a permanent, monogamous marriage. 2. At the time of the annulment process, one of the spouses is blatantly and manifestly adulterous. Does such “behavior”, ipso facto, prove that the spouse’s intention at the time of marriage was not to be permanent and monogamous? Or is such behavior merely evidence to be considered in determining the intention at the time of marriage? Or is our premise completely incorrect about current conduct or state of mind being of any relevance to the state of mind at the time of marriage?

It would depend. Basically, one would have to take various circumstances into account. For example, if the couple were faithful to one another during the courtship, and their common life lasted for years before one of the parties entered into an adulterous relationship, then all other things being equal, such behavior would not be indicative of an intention against fidelity at the time of the wedding. Rather, it would be indicative to me of a marriage that was validly entered into, and subsequently broke down. So unless there was additional grounds to consider, I would be morally compelled to rule in the negative, that is to say, that the marriage has not been proven with moral certitude to be invalid.

On the other hand, supposing the adulterous party was unfaithful throughout the courtship, but kept promising the other party (as well as him or herself) that he or she would be faithful once the vows were exchanged. However, he or she reneges early on within the common life, and it becomes apparent that he or she will find fidelity difficult throughout the common life, and will periodically engage in adulterous affairs. In this scenario, the Rota has agreed that the adultery would be a strong indication of an intention (albeit likely implicit) of an intention against fidelity on the part of the adulterous party, since it fits in with an overall pattern that preceded the wedding and actions speak louder than words.

Second scenario:

1. At the time of marriage, a couple intends on practicing artificial contraception. In fact, they intended on remaining childless. 2. Later, they become faithful Catholics and practice NFP — and have children. Did they have a sacramental marriage initially? If not, did it “become” a sacramental marriage at the later date? If so, how?

If their intention to remain childless can be proven, and one of the parties wishes to challenge the validity of the marriage, then all other things being equal, the marriage is invalid. This is regardless of whether sacramental (between two baptized) or natural (where only one or neither party is baptized.) This is because marriage is entered into at the time the marital consent is exchanged. Nevertheless, all marriages are presumed valid until the contrary is proven. Therefore, unless one of the parties wishes to challenge the validity of the marriage, which would seem unlikely in this case, the presumption that the marriage is valid stands. Pastorally, couples who rediscover their faith and become more devout in their faith, but still have concerns that their marriage may be invalid despite the presumption of validity, can always approach the priest and request a renewal of consent. This isn’t the most common reason why couples will renew their marriage vows, but it is not an uncommon reason either.

Questions about post-Christian Judaism

One of my long-time readers asks the following, which I must admit I am not an expert in. Therefore, I thought I would post it to the blog and see if anyone with a theological background in this area could be of assistance.

After the destruction of the first temple, the Ark was lost and the Jews were dispersed. Thereafter, Judaism changed and in particular, the method of worship. Some of these changes are listed in Ezekiel. Others are not. From where do current Jewish authorities derve their authority? Moreover, how do they justify their current methods and practices, in the absence of the Ark?

I’m just looking for a definitive Catholic answer on this question. Moreover, I believe it is of significance to the changes in the Church. Names, dates, events, authoritative definitions of the Jews, etc. (ie. citations) would be helpful in answering this specific question though. Thanks! :)

Annulments – A Father-Daughter Activity

Something about this situation seems ironic. In my spare time, I moonlight as a judge-ponens for another Tribunal. This means that after the other judges and I have reviewed a particular case and counted the votes, I compose the sentence, explaining why we ruled either in the affirmative or in the negative. With the advent of email attachments, air mail and internet encryption technology, the process has quickened quite a bit. Also, this brings in some extra cash to pay bills and helps this particular tribunal to clear up their backlog so that people can get on with their lives. More strangely, however, is that fact that sentencing cases has become a great opportunity for me to spend some productive and quality time with my daughter. See, I cannot recruit my wife, because of confidentiality, however, at two years of age, my daughter is just perfect for the task. Once I’m done with a page of the acts, I give it to my daughter, who then tears it to shreds and awaits my inspection. When enough pieces are built up, she will then prod me until I tell her put them in the garbage, at which point she carries them over to the trash can. She enjoys doing this, and got really angry tonight when my wife tried to help her pick up a piece she had dropped on her way over to the trash can. Sigh. I never thought that such a dreary activity would turn into a family affair, but I’m grateful for the help.

, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch ‘canonizations’ a credit which is not due to them.”

Given the popularity of Padre Pio among traditionalists (regardless of whether they are of the Lidless Eye, the Pseudo-Tridentinist or the authentic variety) even I have to admit that this takes a lot of guts for him to follow his Lidless Eye principles to this extreme. Or perhaps he has finally surpassed his own kookiness in condemning The Sound of Music.

Marriage Outside of the Church

It’s nice to be back at Catholic Light after a slight distraction with a few Lidless Eye types this week over at Envoy. Anyway, Eric Johnson emailed me the following question: “It’s my understanding that if a baptized couple gets married in a civil ceremony — not a church or minister of any kind in sight — then that’s an invalid form and the Church does not recognize the marriage. A guy with whom I was having dinner said that no, the Church does recognize such marriages. Can you clarify publicly?”

Okay, since I’m in charge of processing Lack of Form cases for our diocese, I know this area of canon law like the back of my hand (especially since I’m often staring at the back of hands while entering the information into the computer.) Basically the canonical form of marriage, in other words before a properly delegated priest (or a deacon or layperson may be delegated by the Church in the West) and two witnesses applies to anyone that was baptized Catholic or Orthodox and has not defected by means of a formal act. (Don’t ask what defection by means of a formal act is, since canonists are still bickering over this.) But the important thing to remember here is that we recognize the canonical form of our separated Eastern non-Catholic Churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches of the East.)

Only one of the parties needs to be baptized Catholic or Orthodox for the canonical form to apply, although it obviously applies if both are baptized Catholic or Orthodox. Anyway, if a baptized Catholic or Orthodox attempts marriage before a Protestant minister or a Justice of the Peace or a Jewish Rabbi or a SSPX priest, without first obtaining the necessary dispensation from canonical form, then the marriage is considered invalid by the Church. As an aside, if a Catholic marries an Orthodox before an Orthodox priest without first obtaining permission from the Catholic Church, then the marriage is still considered valid but illicit.

So what happens if two baptized Protestants marry before a Justice of the Peace? Because Protestants are not bound to canonical form, and because the Church does not recognize attempts by any Protestant ecclesial communions to bind their adherents to a specific form, the Church would recognize such a marriage as valid. Basically, as long as neither party has been baptized Catholic or Orthodox, and both parties are free to marry, the Church recognizes as valid any marriage that was contracted in accordance with the requirements of civil law.