Annulment--I have a question

[country_ant]

Can anyone help with this question? I want to reiceve Holy Communion and am not married in the church because of divorce. I have an annulment but my husband does not. what shall i do?

 

[Skribilo]

You might get a better answer if this were moved to a different section of the forum. I just thought that I would let you know so that you may get more answers, but the people here are very willing to help and you should still get some replies.

 

[Katie1723]

Can anyone help with this question? I want to reiceve Holy Communion and am not married in the church because of divorce. I have an annulment but my husband does not. what shall i do?

Your best bet would be to talk to a priest.
Kathy

 

[Nordar]

If your marriage is not a Catholic Marriage (Not Married in the Catholic Church) then you cannot recieve Commumion.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

If your marriage is not a Catholic Marriage (Not Married in the Catholic Church) then you cannot recieve Commumion.

Yes you can. It depends on the situation. I know people (Catholics) who are married to Protestants and Jews that can receive.

You have to get permission from the local Bishop.

Who is that lady married to Allen Greenspan he’s Jewish; yes Judy Woodduff she’s Catholic and she receives Communion.

 

[Nordar]

Yes you can. It depends on the situation. I know people (Catholics) who are married to Protestants and Jews that can receive.

You have to get permission from the local Bishop.

Who is that lady married to Allen Greenspan he’s Jewish; yes Judy Woodduff she’s Catholic and she receives Communion.

This does not have anything to do with the original question, I did not say that anyone married to a non catholic could not recieve Communion.

You CANNOT recieve communion if you are Divorced and remarried Outside The Catholic Church. The OP Is Renmarried Outside the Church she is therefore according to The Doctrine/Magisterium of The Church living in a state of Mortal sin so cannot recieve.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Can anyone help with this question? I want to reiceve Holy Communion and am not married in the church because of divorce. I have an annulment but my husband does not. what shall i do?

I hope my bluntness does not offend you, as that is not my intent. I simply want to be clear about what the Church teaches.

Your husband’s prior marriage may or may not be valid. However, under canon law, it is presumed to be valid until he receives an annulment in the external forum of Catholic ecclesial law. That presumption is intended to protect the sanctity of the indissoluability of marriage in accord with Christian doctrine. Until he receives an annulment and your civil marriage to him is “regularized”, you may not receive Holy Communion.

Until his annulment, the person you are married to is presumed to be STILL married to another. Consequently, your first obligation is that you should separate from him. His first obligation is to attempt to reconcile with his wife (from his first marriage). This is not often possible, but that is the first obligation for both of you in accord with Catholic moral teaching.

For grave reasons, you may remain together (eg. raising of children), but only under certain conditions, namely, that you resolve to live continently (no sex), as brother and sister until your husband receives an annulment and your marriage is regularized.

Unless he receives an annulment also, you are co-habitating with a man married to another. Such a situation is not compatible with Christ’s teaching regarding the absolute indissoluability of a valid marriage. Thus, neither of you are permitted to received Holy Communion under Catholic canonical norms.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…
Since there are various and conflicting responses to your quesiton, I’m including this excerpt from Pope John Paul II so that you can better discern official Catholic teaching on the matter…

John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio:

e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried

1. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”(180)

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I did not say that anyone married to a non catholic could not recieve Communion.
.

Your statement is this:

“If your marriage is not a Catholic Marriage (Not Married in the Catholic Church) then you cannot receive Communion.”

It was misleading to me. But I’m half Polish so by law I can mess up.

You do not have to be married in the Catholic Church to receive Communion. I’m somewhat in the same situation. My wife is divorced but she was never in a Christian marriage, civil only.

[We are married by JP only]

She is a Seventh-day Adventist they have a valid Baptism she does not want to become Catholic. I can with permission from my Bishop get married in the Seventh-day Adventist church, which will make my marriage a valid Christian marriage. After confession I can go and receive Communion.

The only problem in my situation is that her Adventist minister does not want to marry us until I am baptized in their church and become a Seventh-day Adventist.

After picking myself off the floor from laughing so hard. I said “I will die a Catholic, and probably a widower [first wife passed away]. I’ve been trying to do this for six years. The Catholic Church does not have a problem.

The Seventh-day Adventists are so hatful to the Catholic Church they’re holding it up. I told my wife this is the last draw. I’m in a corner to choose my wife or God. Well I choose God. If my wife does not come around I will kick her to the curb before December.

 

[Nordar]

I’m sorry but If your wife was married before and divorced wether it was a Christian Marriage or not she was still married. She still needs to get an annulment or some form of dissolvement, and if you were married by a JP you are essentially living in sin in the eyes of the Church. I don’t know who told you all you need is a dispensation from The Bishop and that you can recieve Communion if you go to confession. You need to be Married in The Catholic Church and your wife needs to get an annulment from her first marriage or perhaps not an annulment because it was not a Christian marriage but she will need to talk to someone. You need to go speak to a Priest.

 

[LighthouseRon]

Your best bet would be to talk to a priest.

                   Kathy

This is the best advice, rather than taking advice from internet posters. Many times the information you get here is accurate but sometimes it’s not. Play it safe. Talk to a priest.

God Bless,

Ron

 

[puzzleannie]

Can anyone help with this question? I want to reiceve Holy Communion and am not married in the church because of divorce. I have an annulment but my husband does not. what shall i do?

this question will get more response where it belongs, in liturgy and sacraments. What you should do is go to confession and tell your story to the priest and follow is counsel. can’t to on-line confessions here.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I’m sorry but If your wife was married before and divorced wether it was a Christian Marriage or not she was still married. She still needs to get an annulment or some form of dissolvement, and if you were married by a JP you are essentially living in sin in the eyes of the Church. I don’t know who told you all you need is a dispensation from The Bishop and that you can recieve Communion if you go to confession. You need to be Married in The Catholic Church and your wife needs to get an annulment from her first marriage or perhaps not an annulment because it was not a Christian marriage but she will need to talk to someone. You need to go speak to a Priest.

I have spoken to my Priest and Canon lawyers. No annulment is needed. In the eyes of the Church she was never married.

It was my Priest that first gave me this advice. Then I check with some Canon lawyers and they gave the same advice.

My marriage is in scandal that’s how come I cannot receive. Right know we are living as brother and sister.

Thanks for your advice.

 

[Nordar]

Now I am totally confused, Your Priest and Canon Lawyers told you it would be OK for you to get married in The Seventh- Day Adventist Church. That would make it a Christian marriage, you could then go to confession and recieve The Eucharist?

I am not doubting that is what you were told, it is just that it is the total opposite from all that I have been taught. I honestly have never heard of that, but maybe things have changed I don’t know.

I understand about your marriage being in scandal, why won’t your wife get married in The Catholic Church? She doesn’t have to become Catholic to do that? And if you are living as brother and sister why can’t you go to confession and then recieve? I wish you luck.

 

[adrift]

WOW do you have a bunch of misconceptions.

“If your marriage is not a Catholic Marriage (Not Married in the Catholic Church) then you cannot receive Communion.”
This is true

You do not have to be married in the Catholic Church to receive Communion
/COLOR]

This is a false and misleading statement. I suppose it comes from not knowing what to be married in the Catholic Church means
I’m somewhat in the same situation. My wife is divorced but she was never in a Christian marriage, civil only.
To receive Communion worthily you must be free of mortal sin. Your wifes marriage still would have been considered a marriage. Your making a difference between a Christian and a civil marriage. The Church does not have the same distinction. A marriage in the church is one that is done according to the rules laid down by the Church. You can get permission to have the ceremony conducted in another denomination but it is STILL considered being married in the Catholic Church.
[We are married by JP only]
You are not married in the eyes of the Church.
She is a Seventh-day Adventist they have a valid Baptism she does not want to become Catholic. I can with permission from my Bishop get married in the Seventh-day Adventist church, which will make my marriage a valid Christian marriage. After confession I can go and receive Communion. To receive the Sacrament worthily you must be free of mortal sin. So you should be going to confession BEFORE you are married

 

[Nordar]

adrift,

The poster is saying that His Priest and Canon Lawyers told him that his wife was never married that her marriage would not be recognized by The Church and she would not need it annuled. I am totally confused as to why a Priest and Lawyers would tell him that because I know from having experience with others that that is just not true.

Like you said even if she was married by a JP she was still married in the eyes of The Church.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I have checked this out. My wife does not have to go though any annulment process.

She has never been in a Christian marriage there is nothing to annul. Think about it the Church cannot annul a marriage that is done by the State of Texas or any other state for that matter. It won’t stand up in civil court.

As far as the Church is concerned I’m not married.

The Church considers us living in sin. So I can’t receive. The Church doesn’t recognize this marriage. Just like my wife’s first marriage the Church never recognize it.

I was the same mind set as you people. I thought that she would have to go through this big annulment process. I’ve heard a lot of stories about this. The majority of people that get annulments were in valid Christian marriages.

I’m a baptized Christian; my wife is a baptized Christian; and we are living together that’s the sin, that’s the scandal.

I get permission to marry in her church and lets say we do get married in her church. The Catholic Church will then recognize the marriage. The marriage will then be blessed. The only condition is that any children will have to be raised Catholic.

It’s that simple. You do not have to be married in the Catholic Church to receive.

Example: Dr Scott Hahn when he first received Communion his wife Kimberly did not want to convert yet. They were not married in the Catholic Church buy Scott Hahn could receive. The Catholic Church recognized the Hahn’s are in a valid Christian marriage.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

adrift,
Like you said even if she was married by a JP she was still married in the eyes of The Church.

Let me explain it this way.

The Church recognizes a JP marriage as a civil union only. It is not a Sacramental marriage

My wife and myself have never taken Christian vows of marriage in our lives. So the Church cannot annul something that has never taken place

That’s the loophole.

I did make a misstatement in my last post I said that the majority of people that go though the annulments are in valid Christian marriages.

All people that go through annulments were in some type of Christian marriage.

Remember annulments are not a divorce. When a person gets an annulment the Church is saying the marriage never happened. One of the persons did not take the vows seriously I mean never believed in them in the first place

 

[cameron_lansing]

The OP is very strongly urged to take the matter to the parish priest. Even when postings are accurate, they can scarcely consider all the facts. Those can only be uncovered by personal dialogue and some precise questioning of the parties and review of other factors. The law can take twists and turns. Because of the spiritual implications and consequences involved, it is always necessary to have a sit down with a person and never rely on internet postings from anyone, no matter how expert the source is, or thinks he/she is.

It may be true that “You do not have to be married in the Catholic Church to receive Communion.” But you have to be Catholic (with certain limited exceptions), in a state of grace and not under certain kinds of Church penalties, and if married, you cannot be in a marriage which the Church does not recognize as valid.

Now I cannot imagine how one poster was given the advice from a priest and canon lawyers which he reports. Something appears to be very much amiss, and several different points of law appear to have been confused. Sometimes it is hard to juggle all the technical things we hear from professionals in fields outside of our own areas of expertise. I recommend he and his wife speak with his local tribunal, perhaps making an appointment. It is possible for me to make sense of some of what is said for some technical reasons. But it would not be prudent to discuss those here.

Otherwise, there seem to be some misunderstandings in what is reported. I cannot respond to all of them. My comments will be directed only to two statements to illustrate some points.

All people that go through annulments were in some type of Christian marriage.

That’s just wrong. It needn’t be a Christian marriage.

The Church recognizes a JP marriage as a civil union only. It is not a Sacramental marriage.

This would not be correct as a statement standing by itself and deserves some elaboration.

The marriage of two non Catholics, if one of them is not baptized, before a justice of the peace could very well be valid. Depending on other circumstances though, it is also possible that it would not be valid.

The marriage of two baptized non Catholics before a justice of the peace could very well be both valid and sacramental. Depending on other circumstances though, it is also possible that it would not be valid. And a marriage that is not valid, could not be sacramental either.

1. All non Catholics when they marry non Catholics need to be free to marry according to divine law. They are not Catholics and only bound to the parts of marriage law that are of divine law, and not those that are of merely Church law. Two impediments of divine law would prevent a valid marriage for anyone regardless of baptismal status or religion or how the wedding is celebrated. The Church cannot relax the law to dispense from these two obstacles since they are matters of divine law.

1a. Divine law forbids a person from marrying again when there is such a living spouse from a prior valid marriage. This is called the impediment of ligamen. There are only three exceptions to this and I mention them in 5c below.

1b. Divine law also forbids marriage when there is a blood relationship, in the direct line (ancestors with descendants) and in the second degree of the collateral line ( siblings). This is called the impediment of consanguinity. The Church cannot relax the law and dispense from it in the direct line and does not dispense from it in the second degree of the collateral line.

1. Non Catholics who marry non Catholics, excepting the Eastern Orthodox*, can enter a valid marriage civilly if they are free to marry as in nos. 1a and 1b above. They do not need a religious ceremony, just a legal civil ceremony.

2a. Only the Eastern Orthodox need a sacred rite in which an Eastern Orthodox priest presides according to their own laws (*and possibly the Polish National Catholic Church).

2b. The Catholic Church considers all other non Catholics who marry non Catholics (e.g. Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, SDA, LDS, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc.) as quite capable of entering a valid marriage without a religious ceremony.

to be continued

 

[cameron_lansing]

continued
3. But if both parties are free to marry according to divine law and even one party is Catholic, the marriage requires for validity:

3a. the proper Catholic form of the marriage ceremony or a dispensation from it or another exception in law (one is when marrying an Eastern Orthodox in the sacred rite of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and I omit the others for the sake of simplicity), and

3b. any dispensations from the Catholic Church for any impediments that arise from merely Church law.

3c. It is possible then to imagine a case where a Catholic marries a baptized non Catholic before a civil official in a public ceremony with the dispensation from the Catholic form of marriage and other needed dispensations. Such a marriage would be both valid and sacramental. (Usually though such a dispensation is only given when there is going to be a religious ceremony.)

1. If the parties are free to marry and marry according to whatever legal form is required by the Church in their own particular case, then

4a. If both parties are validly baptized Christians, the marriage would be both valid and sacramental.

4b. If only one or neither is a baptized Christ, the marriage would be valid but not sacramental. However, it could eventually become sacramental if any non baptized spouse gets baptized during the common life so that both parties end up baptized (and validly baptized at that).

1. Keep in mind that a decree of nullity by the Catholic Church does not consider whether the marriage was sacramental, but only if it was valid. If it was invalid, even with both parties baptized, then of course, it could not really be sacramental either.
2. Something always has to be done to establish the freedom of a previously married person, even if the person is non Catholic married to a non Catholic, before the person can marry a Catholic, or be in a marriage to a Catholic which the Church can recognize as valid.

5a. This could be a decree of nullity, i.e., “annulment.” We do them all the time for two non Catholics who married only civilly and were otherwise free to marry.

5b. If a non Catholic’s marriage was to a Catholic but outside the Church and without dispensation from the Catholic form of marriage and not covered by one of the other exceptions in law, then an administrative decree states those facts and states the parties are free to marry in the Catholic Church. A judicial process by a tribunal is not needed to do that, and in that sense we might not technically call that what people think of as an “annulment.” Usually though, for the sake of safety, someone at the tribunal is authorized to make that declaration.

5c. Even the dissolution of a valid first marriage could establish freedom to marry under the conditions for a Pauline Privilege, a Petrine Privilege or a dispensation from a non consummated marriage. These are broad topics and seem outside the scope of the facts revealed in this thread, so I’ll not comment on them.