correct, the marriage may be invalid yet for annullment purposes valid.Even in cases where a marriage is presumed to be invalid (due to lack of form) many (if not most) dioceses require that the marriage tribunal examine the marriage and rule on it.
I would think that in the case of someone considering the priesthood any attempt at marriage would be examined rather closely.
I think it is unfair to characterize this as “looking for loopholes.” Having his previous marriage reviewed by a tribunal to determine his eligibility for a priestly vocation would be humbly doing what the Church requires.Someone who is discerning the priesthood should humbly do what the Church requires, he shouldn’t be looking for loopholes. He needs to talk to the vocations director in his diocese and see what will be required. Once he knows he can begin the steps required. It may be that the process will be longer or more difficult than he supposes. Hopefully, that will not deter him.
I will remember him when I pray for our priests and for an increase in vocations.
He needs to talk to the vocations director in his diocese. The answer is, it depends.My friend is catholic and got married in the Anglican Church. He did not get any dispensation to marry there. He is divorced now for 2 years with no children. He is now considering the Priesthood. Will he need any anulment since he did not marry in the catholic church?
True, and not all dioceses are keen on requesting such dispensations.He needs to talk to the vocations director in his diocese. The answer is, it depends.
If the woman he married had a prior bond, then Canon 1041.3 applies and he may be irregular for receiving orders (i.e. impeded). Dispensations from irregularities are reserved to the Apostolic See. If he left the Church (you mentioned marrying in the Anglican church, if he also practiced there) the irregularity of Canon 1041.2 may apply also.
If no impediments exist, then it is a matter of prudential judgment on the part of the vocations director and the Bishop (or Superior of the order) as to whether or not to accept the candidate.
A deacon might want to speak to this. I haven’t a clue if the process is the same for a priest, but I suspect that it’s similar.Someone I know was married in the Church many years ago. A few years later he received a secular divorce. A few years after that he got married outside of the Church. About ten years later he had his first marriage annulled (there was no problem) and his current marriage convalidated.
About ten years after that he applied to our permanent diaconate program. He was accepted but then released. While everything was in order there was an issue – not having his first marriage annulled before being married for a second time would have required his diocese to intercede on his behalf with the Holy See for him to be ordained.
The VG of our diocese said the diocese would not intercede. My friend was shocked. He wrote the bishop and received no answer. He made peace with the fact that he would never be ordained but he still followed through on this matter, face-to-face while on vacation in Rome. A priestly canonist (from the USA stationed at the Vatican) worked through the process for him at no charge (it took about 3 months and quite a bit of faxed material) and he was granted the required status to re-join the diaconate formation. The Holy See took his direct request very seriously and was very diligent in taking action.
The reason if point this out is because chanceries in different dioceses don’t always treat people fairly and with enough attention and people need to be aware of this.
I must admit I was fairly surprised (and impressed) that the Holy See took this on directly and at the speed in which is was dealt with but the documentation doesn’t lie. I would fully have expected the Holy See to simply refer him to his bishop. It goes to show that the Holy See treats vocations with immense seriousness. I think about this when I see things that upset me in my diocese.A deacon might want to speak to this. I haven’t a clue if the process is the same for a priest, but I suspect that it’s similar.
I have a friend who was recently ordained deacon. One of the final things to happen was that the bishop had to determine that he (my friend) and all of his classmates were called to Holy Orders. The bishop sends them a letter stating this. The bishop doesn’t have to justify his decision; he can determine, even after years of diaconate formation, that the man is not called to Holy Orders. It’s not a matter of fairness; fairness implies that one has a right to ordination, which nobody does. The deacon will serve in obedience to the bishop, period.
The bishop has the charism to determine if men will be ordained. From my friend’s explanation, this is not an administrative matter, asking if all of the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed. It’s a spiritual matter.
I have another friend who was removed from the diaconate formation program after two years of training. No reason was given. The bishop is not required to give any reason. It may seem “unfair,” but this is not an equal-opportunity employment interview. I suspect that if the bishop did not answer the above “former deacon candidate’s” letter, that this is not something that should be blamed on the diocesan staff.
This statement is very true. I’ve found the attitude on CAF that even if the pastor is committing liturgical abuses, we should go with it, because they are our superiors. Yes, they are our superiors, but guess what…they have superiors too, and if they are abusing the liturgy, one of two things are true:You make the comment “The deacon will serve in obedience to the bishop, period.” That’s true only if the bishop is not doing anything wrong.
You make the comment “The deacon will serve in obedience to the bishop, period.” That’s true only if the bishop is not doing anything wrong.
While this is true about abuses it does not stand with the Calling of one to Ordination.This statement is very true. I’ve found the attitude on CAF that even if the pastor is committing liturgical abuses, we should go with it, because they are our superiors. Yes, they are our superiors, but guess what…they have superiors too, and if they are abusing the liturgy, one of two things are true:
Either way, just because your pastor is doing it does not make it right.
- They are being disobedient
- Their superiors are being disobedient
I have been told this is especially an impediment in the East. I have no idea if this is true but I have heard that men inquiring about holy orders might be turned away based on the fact their parents were divorced or if for example, one of their children was incarcerated.While this is true about abuses it does not stand with the Calling of one to Ordination.
There is no “wrong” with this. The bishop can not do wrong by not calling a man forward.
If this man thinks he may have a calling to the priesthood then he needs to start the process to get an annulment and he should get a spiritual director. He should also contact his dioceses vocation director (after starting the annulment process) and find out the requirements for consideration as a candidate for orders. Some diocese will not accept men who have been divorced (even with an annulment which would be required).
This is not a good parallel at all. Pastor disobedience to the rubrics of the Mass given by the Church is one thing. We are not called to support or tolerate abuses.This statement is very true. I’ve found the attitude on CAF that even if the pastor is committing liturgical abuses, we should go with it, because they are our superiors. Yes, they are our superiors, but guess what…they have superiors too, and if they are abusing the liturgy, one of two things are true:
Either way, just because your pastor is doing it does not make it right.
- They are being disobedient
- Their superiors are being disobedient
No one has a vocation until the church says you do. The church calls people through the bishop or superior of the religious order. If one bishop doesn’t call you and another does, that doesn’t mean the first was wrong. In the case of the man with the annulment, it may indeed have been his persistence in going to the vatican directly that got his bishop’s attention - think of St Terese doing the same. However, that still doesn’t mean the bishop or VG was wrong to tell him no the first time.Finally, a bishop most certainly can do wrong by not calling a man forward if he failed to do so for the wrong reasons.
OK, his previous marriage is indeed invalid if he married outside the Church without a dispensation. He needs to have that marriage declared null. In such cases its as simple as providing the marriage license and divorce decree. That should be taken care of ASAP.My friend is catholic and got married in the Anglican Church. He did not get any dispensation to marry there. He is divorced now for 2 years with no children. He is now considering the Priesthood. Will he need any anulment since he did not marry in the catholic church?
There is absolutely no question that a bishop can do wrong by refusing to ordain a given man if his refusal is for the wrong reasons.No one has a vocation until the church says you do. The church calls people through the bishop or superior of the religious order. If one bishop doesn’t call you and another does, that doesn’t mean the first was wrong. In the case of the man with the annulment, it may indeed have been his persistence in going to the vatican directly that got his bishop’s attention - think of St Terese doing the same. However, that still doesn’t mean the bishop or VG was wrong to tell him no the first time.
I am happy to see you finally added that. There are also certainly situations where a priest or deacon would not serve a bishop even if it did not include sin. The most obvious thing that comes to mind is serving a bishop where doing so harms one’s own reputation.This is not a good parallel at all. Pastor disobedience to the rubrics of the Mass given by the Church is one thing. We are not called to support or tolerate abuses.
A bishop determining if a man is called to Holy Orders is completely, utterly different. A bishop needs no reason, no justification, and answers to nobody except God in determining that a man is not called to Holy Orders.
The relationship of the laity to the pastor is totally different from the relationship of an ordained man to the bishop (or religious superior). Priests and deacons serve the bishop (or superior), unless the bishop is asking them to sin. Period.
I am sorry but there is no such thing as a “wrong” reason.There is absolutely no question that a bishop can do wrong by refusing to ordain a given man if his refusal is for the wrong reasons.