T
Teresakc
Guest
If a Catholic is divorced shouldn’t they get an annulment before they begin dating again? 
- Status
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
Definately
P
puzzleannie
Guest
Yes, a Catholic who is divorced is still married canonically, and therefore is not free to date.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Absolutely an annulment should be needed; in practice too many people only start to seek an annulment when they have already been dating and have decided they want to marry someone else. Even my dear priest was surprised that I came in to ask for one and I’m neither engaged nor dating!
J
jjwilkman
Guest
annullment/divorce is hell!! i have been living in hell for 16 years
C
chevalier
Guest
There is no such thing as an annulment. There is no power on this earth to annul a sacramental marriage. Only a marriage which is invalid since the very beginning can be declared null by a church tribunal. But the tribunal’s verdict doesn’t make the marriage invalid. It can only express the certainty of the judges that valid marriage has not in fact been contracted. The judges are not infallible, nor is their verdict, and it’s as good as the information they have. There is nothing sacramental about the decree.
But you need to have such a declaration of nullity to attempt marriage again. Know why? Because you can’t be sure if your marriage really is invalid. The fact that you have obtained a civil divorce doesn’t mean anything. “Annulment” is not a Catholic divorce. If it actually turns out that there was no impediment when you were marrying and there was full knowledge and consent, then you are still married to that woman until one of you dies.
Would you like to fall in love with someone new and then find out that you’re married and have to say goodbye to your new sweetheart? I’d rather stick to brotherly and sisterly affections for the rest of my life than risk something like that.
God bless. You’re in my prayers.
But you need to have such a declaration of nullity to attempt marriage again. Know why? Because you can’t be sure if your marriage really is invalid. The fact that you have obtained a civil divorce doesn’t mean anything. “Annulment” is not a Catholic divorce. If it actually turns out that there was no impediment when you were marrying and there was full knowledge and consent, then you are still married to that woman until one of you dies.
Would you like to fall in love with someone new and then find out that you’re married and have to say goodbye to your new sweetheart? I’d rather stick to brotherly and sisterly affections for the rest of my life than risk something like that.
God bless. You’re in my prayers.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
chevalier brings up a good point.
There is no such thing as “an annulment” in the sense that annulments are discovered, not granted.
To me that is largely a big crock. When I go to a Catholic wedding there is no way for the participants to even know if a sacrament is being conferred, unless it has been thoroughly investigated. Of course, we don’t investigate it unless we have motivation to “find” that it never happened.
Annullment makes Catholic weddings into a joke; the priest should just say, “I now tentatively pronounce you man and wife, pending further investigation to the contrary.”
Alan
There is no such thing as “an annulment” in the sense that annulments are discovered, not granted.
To me that is largely a big crock. When I go to a Catholic wedding there is no way for the participants to even know if a sacrament is being conferred, unless it has been thoroughly investigated. Of course, we don’t investigate it unless we have motivation to “find” that it never happened.
Annullment makes Catholic weddings into a joke; the priest should just say, “I now tentatively pronounce you man and wife, pending further investigation to the contrary.”
Alan
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Alan, my declaration of nullity has just passed the first affirmation. My wedding was not a CROCK. It wasn’t a “tentative” affair and I most certainly did not go into it with the idea that if things ever “went sour” I could just “get an annulment”.
Please attempt to have a little more understanding and consideration for those of us who DO seek nullity of a marriage that, while entered into in GOOD FAITH, was never a sacramental marriage at all. The reasons aren’t because of “feelings” but because of sober fact finding on the part of the tribunals aided by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Divorce and nullity are NOT LIGHT MATTERS and the majority of those who prayerfully seek them are not trying to get something for nothing, have “weak” characters, or immoral, selfish so-and-sos.
I personally resent being categorized, and having my wedding and marriage categorized, as “tentative”, as “sham”, or a JOKE.
Investigated? “Looking to find something”–like it’s a LOOPHOLE? Hardly.
I fought for years to try to “do the right thing” through abuses that would have involved serious jail time if it had been done to an animal. . .and through all this, Alan, if the church had determined that the marriage, even with the heinous abuse, was still a valid sacramental marriage, I WOULD HAVE ABIDED BY THAT DECISION. I still live as I have done for several years. . .as a married woman separated from her husband, faithful, praying for him, raising my family as best I can. No “guy on the side”, no vendettas, no “I gotta be me”, no “grown apart” nonsense.
Are there some who try to abuse the process? Sure. They are usually found out early on. . .these people on the tribunals are professionals with plenty of experience AND with the Holy Spirit too. Sometimes there is the occasional wrong decision (made by NOT listening to the Spirit) but we are only human, after all. The majority of the decisions I assure you are done with great attention, care and prayer, and for good and sufficient reason, and are causes not for “rejoicing” or “getting even” but instead show a person more clearly his or her virtues AND vices and are meant to bring that person to more closely confirm to GOD’S will and to follow GOD’S path, not ours. IMO.
Please attempt to have a little more understanding and consideration for those of us who DO seek nullity of a marriage that, while entered into in GOOD FAITH, was never a sacramental marriage at all. The reasons aren’t because of “feelings” but because of sober fact finding on the part of the tribunals aided by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Divorce and nullity are NOT LIGHT MATTERS and the majority of those who prayerfully seek them are not trying to get something for nothing, have “weak” characters, or immoral, selfish so-and-sos.
I personally resent being categorized, and having my wedding and marriage categorized, as “tentative”, as “sham”, or a JOKE.
Investigated? “Looking to find something”–like it’s a LOOPHOLE? Hardly.
I fought for years to try to “do the right thing” through abuses that would have involved serious jail time if it had been done to an animal. . .and through all this, Alan, if the church had determined that the marriage, even with the heinous abuse, was still a valid sacramental marriage, I WOULD HAVE ABIDED BY THAT DECISION. I still live as I have done for several years. . .as a married woman separated from her husband, faithful, praying for him, raising my family as best I can. No “guy on the side”, no vendettas, no “I gotta be me”, no “grown apart” nonsense.
Are there some who try to abuse the process? Sure. They are usually found out early on. . .these people on the tribunals are professionals with plenty of experience AND with the Holy Spirit too. Sometimes there is the occasional wrong decision (made by NOT listening to the Spirit) but we are only human, after all. The majority of the decisions I assure you are done with great attention, care and prayer, and for good and sufficient reason, and are causes not for “rejoicing” or “getting even” but instead show a person more clearly his or her virtues AND vices and are meant to bring that person to more closely confirm to GOD’S will and to follow GOD’S path, not ours. IMO.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Tantum ergo:
I do not judge you for doing what you are doing. The rules are like they are.
You say your wedding wasn’t a “crock” or “tentative” but you are finding out now that it wasn’t sacramental? It sounds to me like you’re emphasizing the point that I could have attended your wedding thinking there was a sacrament being conferred when, in fact, it wasn’t.
In fact, I would also not judge you if you got a divorce. I just think the whole “nullity” thing is a dangerous construct. I know what Jesus said about divorce, and somehow I don’t think He would throw stones at anyone who got one for reasons of being beaten to a pulp.
When you say a wedding is not tentative, though, then what else could it be? If it was not sacramental, then entering it in good faith wouldn’t have made any difference, but it would have given the illusion that a sacrament was being conferred when maybe it wasn’t. That’s what I mean by tentative; not that you went into it with uncertain motives, but that it is only tentatively valid unless it is investigated.
Luckily I have been blessed with a wonderful marriage, even though I didn’t deserve it. This marriage has been tentatively blessed in the Church. Tentative, because it was never examined and I would not be surprised if there were grounds for nullity in it. Permanent and valid in my mind, though, as yours was at the time.
As a tax preparer, I dealt daily with couples in various stages of divorce and in diverse living situations, and in some cases their tax return was the subject of the most immediate fight. It’s all very ugly business.
I wish you luck. I personally would not blame you for leaving even if the Church does find a valid marriage, but I admire your faith. I’m afraid I wouldn’t have lasted as long as you.
Hopefully you will soon be free of this nightmare. I have technical concerns about the concept of divorce and nullity, but no negative judgment about any given person who is involved with them.
My basic issue with nullity remains, though. When a wedding ceremony takes place, how does anybody in the room know whether a sacrament is actually being conferred or not? If they do not, then the wedding is tentative and is subject to review. If they do know a sacrament is being conferred, how can we come in later and say that it hadn’t?
Alan
Dear Tantum Ergo,
I do not judge you for doing what you are doing. The rules are like they are.
You say your wedding wasn’t a “crock” or “tentative” but you are finding out now that it wasn’t sacramental? It sounds to me like you’re emphasizing the point that I could have attended your wedding thinking there was a sacrament being conferred when, in fact, it wasn’t.
I fully agree with you, and I understand your resentment. If anybody was saying you were trying to get something for nothing, or that you had a weak character, or that you were not prayerfully seeking divorce and nullity, then I would be the first to jump right out in front of you to defend you.
In fact, I would also not judge you if you got a divorce. I just think the whole “nullity” thing is a dangerous construct. I know what Jesus said about divorce, and somehow I don’t think He would throw stones at anyone who got one for reasons of being beaten to a pulp.
When you say a wedding is not tentative, though, then what else could it be? If it was not sacramental, then entering it in good faith wouldn’t have made any difference, but it would have given the illusion that a sacrament was being conferred when maybe it wasn’t. That’s what I mean by tentative; not that you went into it with uncertain motives, but that it is only tentatively valid unless it is investigated.
Luckily I have been blessed with a wonderful marriage, even though I didn’t deserve it. This marriage has been tentatively blessed in the Church. Tentative, because it was never examined and I would not be surprised if there were grounds for nullity in it. Permanent and valid in my mind, though, as yours was at the time.
Then what are they looking for? If it was that obvious there would not have to be any digging to find the loophole – er, reason – that the marriage never really happened.
I admire you for putting up with all of that while keeping steadfast in your faith. I have no personal experience at this, but as a crisis counselor I have encounter other sad stories of abuse that would make people say, “I can’t believe that happens in this country.”
As a tax preparer, I dealt daily with couples in various stages of divorce and in diverse living situations, and in some cases their tax return was the subject of the most immediate fight. It’s all very ugly business.
I wish you luck. I personally would not blame you for leaving even if the Church does find a valid marriage, but I admire your faith. I’m afraid I wouldn’t have lasted as long as you.
Hopefully you will soon be free of this nightmare. I have technical concerns about the concept of divorce and nullity, but no negative judgment about any given person who is involved with them.
My basic issue with nullity remains, though. When a wedding ceremony takes place, how does anybody in the room know whether a sacrament is actually being conferred or not? If they do not, then the wedding is tentative and is subject to review. If they do know a sacrament is being conferred, how can we come in later and say that it hadn’t?
Alan
M
Marysann
Guest
Yes, those who are divorced, but whose marriages have not been declared null should not date. In our culture today it is much harder to live up to our Catholic standards. I am blessed never to have been in this situation, but my poor sister was. Her husband left her for a much younger woman after 25 years of marriage. She talked to her priest about the possibilty of obtaining an annullment. In the meantime she attempted to live as a married woman, caring for her children etc. Her friends constantly bombarded her with offers of blind dates. They could not believe that she would not accept them. She told them that she wanted to live according to the teachings of the Church. She knew that this was necessary for the sake of her own soul, and as to be an example for her teenaged children (and nephews) who were watching this situation with great interest, because their father was living with the other woman without any kind of marriage. She eventually obtained the annullment, and met a wonderful widower in a Catholic singles group. After a proper courtship they were married. I told her that her wonderful witness went from coast to coast as we live in the east. We need to pray for our brothers and sisters in the faith who have found themselves in difficult marital situations that they will have the grace to do what is right. It isn’t easy.
C
chevalier
Guest
Alan, I respect your doubts, and I must agree that something is wrong with the nullity figures. Pope John Paul II expressed concern with the number of nullity declarations issued by American church tribunals, especially on the grounds of defective consent.
However, I have a problem with suggestions not to investigate the validity of a marriage on the grounds of defective consent or otherwise. If it’s null, it means it has always be null. If null, then not sacramental, as well. So what are people protecting if they discourage others from investigating a marriage in the presence of serious doubts regarding the validity of it?
Then again, I have seen Roman Rota verdicts (I’m a law student and canon law was on the tab for a while, the interest remains) that I didn’t like. I have also opened a large thread about my own doubts regarding the problems with marriages and their sacramental character… the opening post took two posts, actually, and there were 30 points if I recall correctly. Including the possibility of a Protestant marriage being valid in the Roman rite but invalid in an Eastern Catholic rite, which is absurd since the current affiliation with a specific rite within the Catholic Church cannot possibly affect the validity of your marriage back from the times when you weren’t even Catholic. It’s really scary…
Sorry to get off-topic, but I hope I didn’t offend you in the last PM. I realise I might have said something off-colour, but I didn’t have any such intention. If something was wrong, please don’t take it against me. It’s been rough for me recently and I’ve been much less stable than I normally am.
However, I have a problem with suggestions not to investigate the validity of a marriage on the grounds of defective consent or otherwise. If it’s null, it means it has always be null. If null, then not sacramental, as well. So what are people protecting if they discourage others from investigating a marriage in the presence of serious doubts regarding the validity of it?
Then again, I have seen Roman Rota verdicts (I’m a law student and canon law was on the tab for a while, the interest remains) that I didn’t like. I have also opened a large thread about my own doubts regarding the problems with marriages and their sacramental character… the opening post took two posts, actually, and there were 30 points if I recall correctly. Including the possibility of a Protestant marriage being valid in the Roman rite but invalid in an Eastern Catholic rite, which is absurd since the current affiliation with a specific rite within the Catholic Church cannot possibly affect the validity of your marriage back from the times when you weren’t even Catholic. It’s really scary…
Sorry to get off-topic, but I hope I didn’t offend you in the last PM. I realise I might have said something off-colour, but I didn’t have any such intention. If something was wrong, please don’t take it against me. It’s been rough for me recently and I’ve been much less stable than I normally am.
J
jimmy
Guest
Tantum ergo:
You might choose to be seperated from your husband, but getting an annulment is a little different.
You should know that you can not get an annulment if the marriage was valid, no matter what happened during the marriage. A marriage is a life long thing. No one can not unbind what God has bound. You yourself even say that the marriage was valid.
You might choose to be seperated from your husband, but getting an annulment is a little different.
J
jimmy
Guest
How many of these marriages would you say are actually invalid? I would say that it is an extremely small percent. I think that most of these people are looking for loopholes.
C
chevalier
Guest
I think many people jump into marriage without thinking much. It’s difficult to try and think what level of informed consent God Himself would require. Some attempts are really only attempts. But we can’t require some abstract perfect knowledge and maturity or it will turn out that the majority of marriages is invalid. I would make people crawl through longer marriage prep classes, with tougher exams (I don’t mean academic stuff but real understanding) etc.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Here’s what I don’t understand. From what her husband did, I’m guessing it might take maybe a week or two, tops, to prove it. Chances are he’d sign a waiver saying he left you for another woman, if it would keep from the hassle of a tribunal.
If that is the case, why does the Church not allow a bona fide “divorce” since Jesus specifically left that as an acceptable reason for divorce? There would be no stigma associated with such a divorce – except that of the situation itself of course but none from the Church. It was specifically authorized by Christ? Why would Peter deny a Catholic what Christ specifically allowed?
This is not a question of Peter’s authority, or that of his successor. My question is more of a logic exercise in how we make the claim that the Church teachings match Christ’s, given the proper interpretation of Scripture.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I think I agree with you here. Certainly I fault nobody for having their marriage investigated. Gee whiz, even in a happily wedded couple what if it wasn’t valid and you learned that, then you could go about setting things right with the Church and therefore God.
No prob. Never would occur to me that you would intend to offend.
Perhaps under sufficient duress we all come across that way, but I haven’t seen it from you except in some of the presuppositions of your questions – from what it seems like you might be trying to validate or dismiss some of them for your own self. I figure we’re all in a different place, so why sweat potential semantic clumsiness when there are other explanations than nefarious ones? We all have a different slice of the wisdom pie, so I like to listen to people who agree and disagree with me.
Alan
C
chevalier
Guest
Alan, the line with “except for adultery” is ambiguous and only shows up in Matthew. It may well mean that putting your wife away pushes her into adultery, which goes on you, except if she had already been committing adultery, then you, of course, wouldn’t contract any guilt for her adultery.
Or He could also have meant an invalid marriage (the original word was “porneia” and it’s a damn tough word to get the right meaning of, with all the hassle about it in ancient Greek) or even a concubinage, adulterous affair, whatever.
So I don’t think it’s a clear allowance for divorce on the grounds of adultery.
However, if someone isn’t intending to keep faithful in marriage or is unable to stay faithful because of some problems predating marriage, then the marriage is invalid from the beginning by Canon 1095.
Before you ask, yeah, it’s right that the way nullity is handled sometimes really looks like the civil “voidable” marriages, i.e. valid unless and until declared null, then retroactively considered invalid (as opposed to the right model, which is presumed valid until proven otherwise and either valid or invalid from the beginning). With that view, we’re getting awfully close to a real annulment, like what civil courts do. And that would indeed be not much different from divorce (i.e. divorce + legal fiction of non-existence as opposed to true nullity).
Hmm… I have an idea for a new thread. What would you do if your wife got pregnant by adultery or if your husband made a woman pregnant. Yeah. Heading to Moral Theology.
Or He could also have meant an invalid marriage (the original word was “porneia” and it’s a damn tough word to get the right meaning of, with all the hassle about it in ancient Greek) or even a concubinage, adulterous affair, whatever.
So I don’t think it’s a clear allowance for divorce on the grounds of adultery.
However, if someone isn’t intending to keep faithful in marriage or is unable to stay faithful because of some problems predating marriage, then the marriage is invalid from the beginning by Canon 1095.
Before you ask, yeah, it’s right that the way nullity is handled sometimes really looks like the civil “voidable” marriages, i.e. valid unless and until declared null, then retroactively considered invalid (as opposed to the right model, which is presumed valid until proven otherwise and either valid or invalid from the beginning). With that view, we’re getting awfully close to a real annulment, like what civil courts do. And that would indeed be not much different from divorce (i.e. divorce + legal fiction of non-existence as opposed to true nullity).
Hmm… I have an idea for a new thread. What would you do if your wife got pregnant by adultery or if your husband made a woman pregnant. Yeah. Heading to Moral Theology.
- Status