Annulment Witness Testimony

[Sillara]

I have to vehemently disagree. If he is married he is married and it is adultery. I don’t buy the whole “kissing isn’t technically in and of itself wrong and neither is spending time together.” That’s horse poop! If your husband were kissing another woman, spending lots of one on one time with her, entertaining his attraction and feelings to the point of falling in love and wanting to marry her you would say that he committed adultery. You would not go “…well, technically they didn’t have sex and he is divorcing me before he marries her…” You would say that he cheated, and the catholic church would say the same. And that is a mortal sin.

BlueEyedLady–yes, yes, and once more, yes!

This is exactly right.

(Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I often wonder why you are not Catholic! )

 

[YADA]

Well - here are some thoughts…

You say that a person is ‘married’ - sacramentally - as if that is a fact… but that may or may not be the case …

In this individual’s case -a non-catholic person … was married civilly - and divorced - civilly … that is a matter for which evidence exits …

However- you are stating - as a fact- that this person remains a married individual …

Upon what basis? …Was their marraige ‘Christian’ in any way? - I see no reference to that. Was one or both parties to that marriage a baptized person? I saw no mention of that. Were they married in a Christian Church? We do not know.

Does their faith tradition/pastor [assuming they have one] recognize their divorce as valid? No indication here …

Was one or both parties mature enough to freely consent to the marriage? Did they freely consent with full knowledge? Were they coerced in any way - marrying due to pregnancy for example? Did one party seek marriage in order to escape abuse? … Don’t know … but all could impact the validity of the marriage.

At best - you can state that the status of the person - be that single or married - needs to be investigated and discerned … The tribunal will weigh the evidence …

For some perspective: If a catholic person marries another [whether catholic or noncatholic] before a justice of the peace [civil marriage] or a protestant minister … and then divorces … you would know and say that they are free to marry [because their civil marriage was never “real”] … but they would still need to discuss it with their pastor

In that same scenario - if they did not divorce civilly - and their marriage was never valid in the eyes of the church - are they free to marry in the church? I would say no … and every priest I know would as well … because they are still civilly married …

The Church gives a benefit of the doubt to all non-catholic marriages [that do not involve a catholic party] … This is a charitable response to others outside the catholic communion. In many ways it is far easier for a catholic to remarry after divorce then for a non-catholic … Why? Because the Church would not recognize as ‘valid/sacramental’ unions [before a JP for example] if the two parties are catholic - but begins with the assumption it was - when two non-catholics - marry before that same JP …

So two people met … one not bound by catholic teaching - found some common ground/mutual friendship … started to date and fell in love …

Neither is married in the civil sense … one was married and is now divorced … the other a never married Catholic … they want to get married and are seeking a determination on whether or not they can contract a sacramental marraige … Thank you Jesus for the gift of the Church to assist us in navigating life!

Hang in there … be honest, patient and let the wheels of the Church turn …

Use this time to share your faith with your friend/fiance. Use this time to grow in your own faith … become an involved, actively practicing catholic - do for others …become unifiedd in your faith - together.

The time will pass and you will both be armored to handle the future [no matter the the tribunal decision]

 

[BlueEyedLady]

BlueEyedLady–yes, yes, and once more, yes!

This is exactly right.

(Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I often wonder why you are not Catholic! )

Deep philosophical and theological differences mostly

But I’ll make you a promise, if someday, somehow, I do ever believe in a god I will definitely take a long, hard look into Catholicism. I can’t promise that would be my pick, but I’ll take a look with an open mind.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have to vehemently disagree. If he is married he is married and it is adultery. I don’t buy the whole “kissing isn’t technically in and of itself wrong and neither is spending time together.” That’s horse poop! If your husband were kissing another woman, spending lots of one on one time with her, entertaining his attraction and feelings to the point of falling in love and wanting to marry her you would say that he committed adultery. You would not go “…well, technically they didn’t have sex and he is divorcing me before he marries her…” You would say that he cheated, and the catholic church would say the same. And that is a mortal sin.

I did not say it was not wrong, although we have to keep in mind that the divorced person is not Catholic and is not bound by canon law. I said it was not a mortal sin…because it isn’t, per se. I wouldn’t like it if my husband kissed somebody else, but that is not the same as saying he’d go straight to Hell if he did. Remember, too, that in this case he’s already obtained a divorce. If we got a divorce because he honestly thought we did not have a valid marriage, I don’t think he’d go to Hell for dating before our marriage was declared null, either. A very bad idea and a* mortal *sin are not the same thing.

Do not forget that the previously-married person was not previously married in the Catholic Church. I have no idea if this couple did anything but say of the previously married man: “We got a civil divorce because we felt we had no marriage. I got no decree of nullity from the Catholic Church, because I’m not Catholic, but there is nothing about my marriage that fits the Catholic definition of a valid marriage.” What, you think non-Catholics are going to jam our tribunals with investigations into their prior marriages so they can date Catholics? That is not going to happen.

It is very much valid to warn those who date someone married and divorced outside the Church that a decree of nullity is not automatic, even if the previously-married person is acting as if the attempt had been null on the good faith of the advice of the ministers in their own denomination. The Roman Catholic Church may not come to the same conclusion as their own clergy did. It happens. It is not a mortal sin, though, for a non-Catholic Christian to believe the advice of their own clergy who tell them that they are not validly married.

 

[1ke]

Upon what basis? …Was their marraige ‘Christian’ in any way? - I see no reference to that. Was one or both parties to that marriage a baptized person? I saw no mention of that. Were they married in a Christian Church? We do not know.

None of these things is relevant to validity. Non-Catholics marry validly when they marry civilly.

Does their faith tradition/pastor [assuming they have one] recognize their divorce as valid? No indication here …

Also completely irrelevant.

Was one or both parties mature enough to freely consent to the marriage? Did they freely consent with full knowledge? Were they coerced in any way - marrying due to pregnancy for example? Did one party seek marriage in order to escape abuse? … Don’t know … but all could impact the validity of the marriage.

Those would be facts for the tribunal to consider in determining validity. Until such a decision is rendered (and confirmed by the court of second instance) the person is considered to be validly married.

For some perspective: If a catholic person marries another [whether catholic or noncatholic] before a justice of the peace [civil marriage] or a protestant minister … and then divorces … you would know and say that they are free to marry [because their civil marriage was never “real”] … but they would still need to discuss it with their pastor

They would be free to marry after a declaration by the tribunal basedon submission of lack of form paperwork.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I did not say it was not wrong, although we have to keep in mind that the divorced person is not Catholic and is not bound by canon law. I said it was not a mortal sin…because it isn’t, per se. I wouldn’t like it if my husband kissed somebody else, but that is not the same as saying he’d go straight to Hell if he did. Remember, too, that in this case he’s already obtained a divorce. If we got a divorce because he honestly thought we did not have a valid marriage, I don’t think he’d go to Hell for dating before our marriage was declared null, either. A very bad idea and a* mortal *sin are not the same thing.

Do not forget that the previously-married person was not previously married in the Catholic Church. I have no idea if this couple did anything but say of the previously married man: “We got a civil divorce because we felt we had no marriage. I got no decree of nullity from the Catholic Church, because I’m not Catholic, but there is nothing about my marriage that fits the Catholic definition of a valid marriage.” What, you think non-Catholics are going to jam our tribunals with investigations into their prior marriages so they can date Catholics? That is not going to happen.

It is very much valid to warn those who date someone married and divorced outside the Church that a decree of nullity is not automatic, even if the previously-married person is acting as if the attempt had been null on the good faith of the advice of the ministers in their own denomination. The Roman Catholic Church may not come to the same conclusion as their own clergy did. It happens. It is not a mortal sin, though, for a non-Catholic Christian to believe the advice of their own clergy who tell them that they are not validly married.

He is not bound by cannon law, but she is. (Furthermore a lot of people get divorced for reasons other than thinking that they don’t have a “valid” marriage. Infidelity and abuse cause divorce, but that doesn’t mean that the marriage wasn’t valid.)

I am really not buying that what she’s doing is not a mortal sin. Adultery is not just the technical, physical act of tab ‘A’ going in to slot ‘B’. The Bible as well as the catholic church say that if a man looks at a woman with lust he has committed adultery in his heart. (Which I do agree with even as an atheist, btw). If that is adultery certainly getting involved with a man that you know to be married, making plans for him to leave his wife and marry you, being romantic and if not having sex at least engaging in acts that should be reserved only for your partner (kissing, holding hands, etc) and sharing things that should only be shared with your spouse is certainly adultery.

Obviously what I would do is different than what a devout practicing catholic should do. But as a catholic she was obligated to say in the beginning “I’m sorry, but I can’t get involved with you. I believe that in the eyes of god you are still married, and I cannot get involved with a married man”. Just as she would have if a married man who was not civilly divorced came on to her. If she believes the catholic definition of marriage and all of the rules surrounding it then there is absolutely no room to say “Well, is isn’t catholic and he is divorced so…” I mean really, if you are completely married until you get a decree of nullity then you are completely married. Married or not is a black and white issue, you aren’t kinda married somewhere on a spectrum.

 

[Winter_Warlock_1]

Ebee,

Sorry that you and your fiancé are going through this. I also am going through an annulment and here in Los Angeles a very large Diocese. I also am working through this with the Monsignor at my Church. After talking to him he explained that he is confident that the annulment will be granted – not just for my ex-wife committing adultery but several other issues. As we were discussing everything Monsignor started out by telling me that the process can be painful but also healing, and that it could take up to 2+ years. But as we talked he changed the timeline to about 1 year.

The process for me is: 1) Monsignor needs to fill out a couple of pages, 2) file all the documents with the Los Angeles Diocese, 3) representatives will be assigned to me and my ex-wife and will call us to clarify things if need be, 4) if the Los Angeles diocese agrees to grant the annulment then it is sent to another diocese for re-examination and approval (which is almost always granted if the primary grants it) 5) the annulment is granted.

But my opinions (which I am told that I am always willing to give –even if not requested )

A) Have Faith in God now and always.

B) As Juliane suggested “try to be patient” – this I know if very very hard to do but “A” does help. (I also need to follow Juliane’s advice )

C) If you are not receiving a return call – try going on line and see if there is a phone number for you Diocese that you can call them directly. Also “A” and “B” helps.

D) Remember that God loves you and wants you happy.

I pray that God grants you Peace and Happiness now and always. Stay strong in faith and you will get through this.

Winter

 

[TheRealJuliane]

He is not bound by cannon law, but she is. (Furthermore a lot of people get divorced for reasons other than thinking that they don’t have a “valid” marriage. Infidelity and abuse cause divorce, but that doesn’t mean that the marriage wasn’t valid.)

I am really not buying that what she’s doing is not a mortal sin. Adultery is not just the technical, physical act of tab ‘A’ going in to slot ‘B’. The Bible as well as the catholic church say that if a man looks at a woman with lust he has committed adultery in his heart. (Which I do agree with even as an atheist, btw). If that is adultery certainly getting involved with a man that you know to be married, making plans for him to leave his wife and marry you, being romantic and if not having sex at least engaging in acts that should be reserved only for your partner (kissing, holding hands, etc) and sharing things that should only be shared with your spouse is certainly adultery.

Obviously what I would do is different than what a devout practicing catholic should do. But as a catholic she was obligated to say in the beginning “I’m sorry, but I can’t get involved with you. I believe that in the eyes of god you are still married, and I cannot get involved with a married man”. Just as she would have if a married man who was not civilly divorced came on to her. If she believes the catholic definition of marriage and all of the rules surrounding it then there is absolutely no room to say “Well, is isn’t catholic and he is divorced so…” I mean really, if you are completely married until you get a decree of nullity then you are completely married. Married or not is a black and white issue, you aren’t kinda married somewhere on a spectrum.

:clapping::yup:

Yep, you are gonna make an AWESOME Catholic!



You already “get us” more than some cradle Catholics do. Love ya, BEL!

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

I agree with 1ke, (see post #25.)

All these matters are for the Diocesan Tribunal to decide. It is a compassionate process. I have been through it. Holy Church has a way of holding us in such great love while examining the truth and bringing things to light.

The Church is fair, and having gone through this process, I was in awe of the respect for all parties, and the seeking of truth, the allowing each person and each witness to examine the facts, all these things which in the end gave me great peace.

Christ teaches us not to fear. “Judgement kisses mercy,” and to our dear OP who is perhaps understandably apprehensive and confused, I would add my best prayers for you as you go through this process. There is nothing wrong with checking in with your Diocesan Tribunal if you have any questions about the timing. They are on the side of truth and compassion, and that can only lead to real peace. That is what I wish for you and everyone involved.

On a personal note, my first partner (from whom the annulment was granted many years ago) died just this year at only 57 years of age. Had I not become a Catholic, after going through the RCIA process and had I not re-married in the Catholic Faith, I know I would never have understood fully the joy of the Sacramental nature of marriage. In the light of the annulment process, I slowly came to understand my own faults and immaturity, and so I was never bitter. I raised my daughter to honor her father. Love can truly transform all situations. Each one is unique.

So, never fear if God is showing you the Ideal. I learned that even though I didn’t live up to it, the Ideal and the Sacramental nature of marriage is there as a great gift. God is never surprised at our failings. And if we’ve been mis-treated or abused, He is there in all compassion to steady us and make straight our path. Mercy kisses judgement, and all will be well. You are beloved of God. We all are. He will show us the way to real peace and joy.

Kathryn Ann

 

[joanofarc2008]

Lets put the rocks down. This is the situation as it stands now. The decree of nullity process is a healing process. That being said if he is not granted this decree then you do need to keep in mind that he is still married in the eyes of the Church. God does make crooked lines straight. Keep the lines of communication open with your priest.

 

[Tired_Mama]

I am really not buying that what she’s doing is not a mortal sin. Adultery is not just the technical, physical act of tab ‘A’ going in to slot ‘B’. The Bible as well as the catholic church say that if a man looks at a woman with lust he has committed adultery in his heart. (Which I do agree with even as an atheist, btw). If that is adultery certainly getting involved with a man that you know to be married, making plans for him to leave his wife and marry you, being romantic and if not having sex at least engaging in acts that should be reserved only for your partner (kissing, holding hands, etc) and sharing things that should only be shared with your spouse is certainly adultery.

Let’s be careful before assuming that someone is committing a mortal sin based on a few sentences written on a forum. In order for a sin to be a mortal sin, it must be done with “full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (see the Catechism) We can’t say based on what she has written here that she had knowledge and consent to committing a mortal sin. Let’s leave that discussion to her confessor/pastor.