Can u date awaiting on anullment?

[nancy_dalrymple]

I received a civil divorce 15 months ago and filed an anullement 12 months ago and still awaiting a decision on the matter. I have a girlfriend now and have been dating for 9 months.

We are not living together nor having sex, but can I still refer to her as my girlfriend?
Am I even allowed to kiss her on the lips?
Can I hold her hand in Church?
How do I introduce her to fellow parishioners? friend or girlfriend?

HI Corvette Guy, i cannot answer your question But i know what i would do! Any way’s Welcome to CAF I would get on your pastor about this. Holding hands should never be asked about, it is common to be able to do that ,or someone is not playing with a full deck! And since when does a goodnight kiss mean a sinful thing? I kiss everyone, old young, relitives and even strangers. I have never found affection sinfull! I cannot believe you have to ask about something so beautiful, and normal. I did nursing and we all kissed our residents and children. Am I missing something?

 

[dborer42]

Can you date while waiting to see if one’s marriage is valid or not? Well, I suppose you can date. We all have free will, after all. But one shouldn’t date. To do so, while the marriage is presumed to be valid (can. 1060) is a grave sin. You may think, just because you are civilly divorced that you aren’t married. Yet, without a declaration of nullity, you ARE presumed to be validly married. We don’t get to decide.

I don’t understand this idea that several people have stated, that it is not a sin to date, while waiting on/hoping to get an annulment. Dating while married is breaking the vows made on the wedding day. You know, the ones where we said, “I will be true to you in good times and in bad.” Dating is not being true to your spouse. It is violating the marriage vows, and that is objectively mortal sin! For those who were abandoned by their spouses, as I was, it doesn’t matter. You are not responsible for your spouse’s decision not to keep his/her vows. But you are held accountable to God for whether or not you keep yours.

For those who say the Church doesn’t consider dating while going through the annulment process, where, aside from your opinions, are you getting this? If you’ve been dating (doesn’t matter if you’re not having sex, as even those free to date and marry are not to be having sex outside of marriage) and your marriage is declared valid, you’ve been cheating on your spouse. If the marriage ends up being declared invalid, nevertheless, you cannot make that presumption yourself prior to the declaration, and start dating.

Christ said to, “Take up your cross and follow me.” Believe me, I know this is a heavy, heavy cross. I do not relish the possibility of being alone for the rest of my life. But I don’t get to make the rules. I don’t get to decide that it’s OK to date and remarry. When/if my wife obtains an affirmative decision in the court of first instance, it will be appealed to the Roman Rota. I’m not sure how else one can really be confident that a declaration of nullity in the U.S. can be valid, in and of itself, when approximately 90% of first instance decisions based on can. 1095 (the “psychological” reasons) are overturned by the Rota.

So, yes, it is mortally sinful to date without a declaration of nullity. It is so easy to fool ourselves into thinking we can keep our emotions (and actions) in check. My wife thought she could be “best friends” with another man, too. I cautioned her about keeping appropriate boundaries, and of avoiding the near occasion of sin. My concerns were brushed aside, saying they were “just friends.” Of course, “just friends” led to emotional infidelity, and later physical infidelity. But, I’m sure like so many others, she believed she could “handle it.” What often ends up happening is IT handles you. For the sake of your eternal soul, don’t place it at risk.

 

[Bluegoat]

OK I am still a little confused, if the church is going to anull your marraige and ask you to remarry in the Catholic church you said you still have to get a civil divorce? I was not told this by my pastor. We were married in another church, not catholic. Is that why we don’t have to get a divorce by the state?

Are you saying that you married in another Church, and you want to have that marriage annuled? If so, you need to get a civil divorce too, not as a theological necessity, but for reasons of practice. Also, if you ever wanted to marry agin and you were legally still married, it would be bigamy.

If you married in another church and want to continue to be married to the same person now, you don’t have to get an annulment or a divorce.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Are you saying that you married in another Church, and you want to have that marriage annuled? If so, you need to get a civil divorce too, not as a theological necessity, but for reasons of practice. Also, if you ever wanted to marry agin and you were legally still married, it would be bigamy.

If you married in another church and want to continue to be married to the same person now, you don’t have to get an annulment or a divorce.

I am realy not that into the laws of the church, and that is what the priest told me, my husband is not catholic and he said the church does not recognize the marriage unless we take our vows over in the church. Does that make sence? We are living like brother and sister until Easter 2010 ETC.

 

[dulcissima]

Can you date while waiting to see if one’s marriage is valid or not? Well, I suppose you can date. We all have free will, after all. But one shouldn’t date. To do so, while the marriage is presumed to be valid (can. 1060) is a grave sin. You may think, just because you are civilly divorced that you aren’t married. Yet, without a declaration of nullity, you ARE presumed to be validly married. We don’t get to decide.

I don’t understand this idea that several people have stated, that it is not a sin to date, while waiting on/hoping to get an annulment. Dating while married is breaking the vows made on the wedding day. You know, the ones where we said, “I will be true to you in good times and in bad.” Dating is not being true to your spouse. It is violating the marriage vows, and that is objectively mortal sin! For those who were abandoned by their spouses, as I was, it doesn’t matter. You are not responsible for your spouse’s decision not to keep his/her vows. But you are held accountable to God for whether or not you keep yours.

For those who say the Church doesn’t consider dating while going through the annulment process, where, aside from your opinions, are you getting this? If you’ve been dating (doesn’t matter if you’re not having sex, as even those free to date and marry are not to be having sex outside of marriage) and your marriage is declared valid, you’ve been cheating on your spouse. If the marriage ends up being declared invalid, nevertheless, you cannot make that presumption yourself prior to the declaration, and start dating.

Christ said to, “Take up your cross and follow me.” Believe me, I know this is a heavy, heavy cross. I do not relish the possibility of being alone for the rest of my life. But I don’t get to make the rules. I don’t get to decide that it’s OK to date and remarry. When/if my wife obtains an affirmative decision in the court of first instance, it will be appealed to the Roman Rota. I’m not sure how else one can really be confident that a declaration of nullity in the U.S. can be valid, in and of itself, when approximately 90% of first instance decisions based on can. 1095 (the “psychological” reasons) are overturned by the Rota.

So, yes, it is mortally sinful to date without a declaration of nullity. It is so easy to fool ourselves into thinking we can keep our emotions (and actions) in check. My wife thought she could be “best friends” with another man, too. I cautioned her about keeping appropriate boundaries, and of avoiding the near occasion of sin. My concerns were brushed aside, saying they were “just friends.” Of course, “just friends” led to emotional infidelity, and later physical infidelity. But, I’m sure like so many others, she believed she could “handle it.” What often ends up happening is IT handles you. For the sake of your eternal soul, don’t place it at risk.

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that so many want to heap extra burdens upon the divorced. According to this poster, not only can you not date until you have received a decision from the Tribunal, you also can’t date after you have received an affirmative decision. He would like you to believe that for the sake of your eternal soul, you must remain in fear and doubt.

I’m sorry, but I am a CATHOLIC and that is not what my Church teaches. Jesus gave the Church the power to bind and loose. When a second affirmative decision is reached by a US Tribunal, a Catholic can be ASSURED that their eternal soul is safe and does not have to doubt the decision of the Tribunal. Who is it that would want us to live in fear and not trust the mercy of the Church that Christ gave us?

I read the entire article by Msgr. Burke. It is merely a criticism that the US Tribunals choose Canon 1095 more often than they should and overlook other Canons that would perhaps make stronger cases. The article in no way suggests that people with declarations of nullity from a US Tribunal should consider themselves still married.

There are numerous reasons why it is not a good idea to date until you have received a declaration of nullity; however, there is not explicit prohibition of it and in and of itself going to dinner, Mass, a concert, bowling, or Bible study with a member of the opposite sex while you are waiting for a decision from the Tribunal is not a sin. Holding hands and kissing are not sins. They can be temptations to go further than one ought, and that is why 1ke’s advice that it is not a sin but it is imprudent, sums it up well.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Can you date while waiting to see if one’s marriage is valid or not? Well, I suppose you can date. We all have free will, after all. But one shouldn’t date. To do so, while the marriage is presumed to be valid (can. 1060) is a grave sin. You may think, just because you are civilly divorced that you aren’t married. Yet, without a declaration of nullity, you ARE presumed to be validly married. We don’t get to decide.

I don’t understand this idea that several people have stated, that it is not a sin to date, while waiting on/hoping to get an annulment. Dating while married is breaking the vows made on the wedding day. You know, the ones where we said, “I will be true to you in good times and in bad.” Dating is not being true to your spouse. It is violating the marriage vows, and that is objectively mortal sin! For those who were abandoned by their spouses, as I was, it doesn’t matter. You are not responsible for your spouse’s decision not to keep his/her vows. But you are held accountable to God for whether or not you keep yours.

For those who say the Church doesn’t consider dating while going through the annulment process, where, aside from your opinions, are you getting this? If you’ve been dating (doesn’t matter if you’re not having sex, as even those free to date and marry are not to be having sex outside of marriage) and your marriage is declared valid, you’ve been cheating on your spouse. If the marriage ends up being declared invalid, nevertheless, you cannot make that presumption yourself prior to the declaration, and start dating.

Christ said to, “Take up your cross and follow me.” Believe me, I know this is a heavy, heavy cross. I do not relish the possibility of being alone for the rest of my life. But I don’t get to make the rules. I don’t get to decide that it’s OK to date and remarry. When/if my wife obtains an affirmative decision in the court of first instance, it will be appealed to the Roman Rota. I’m not sure how else one can really be confident that a declaration of nullity in the U.S. can be valid, in and of itself, when approximately 90% of first instance decisions based on can. 1095 (the “psychological” reasons) are overturned by the Rota.

So, yes, it is mortally sinful to date without a declaration of nullity. It is so easy to fool ourselves into thinking we can keep our emotions (and actions) in check. My wife thought she could be “best friends” with another man, too. I cautioned her about keeping appropriate boundaries, and of avoiding the near occasion of sin. My concerns were brushed aside, saying they were “just friends.” Of course, “just friends” led to emotional infidelity, and later physical infidelity. But, I’m sure like so many others, she believed she could “handle it.” What often ends up happening is IT handles you. For the sake of your eternal soul, don’t place it at risk.

Hello! I can surely see what you are talking about and it does make sence to me. It is very easy to get off track and it is a sin even if you are going through a annulment or divorce. Thing’s could even change and then you would be sorry for what you did. What does it mean for Psychological reasons? i thought you couldn’t divorce if someone was insane ETC

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

OK I am still a little confused, if the church is going to anull your marraige and ask you to remarry in the Catholic church you said you still have to get a civil divorce? I was not told this by my pastor. We were married in another church, not catholic. Is that why we don’t have to get a divorce by the state?

Because multiple marriages are illegal. The Church can not disolve a civil marriage. A marriage is both a religious and a civil thing, so both must be done to fully and legally end one.

 

[Bluegoat]

I am realy not that into the laws of the church, and that is what the priest told me, my husband is not catholic and he said the church does not recognize the marriage unless we take our vows over in the church. Does that make sence? We are living like brother and sister until Easter 2010 ETC.

No, you don’t need an annulment or a civil divorce. He wants you to convalidate your marriage, which is a bit like redoing the Church part that was done improperly before in order to have a valid sacramental marriage.

But the civil part still stands and is fine - the state recognizes you as married and you have all the legal consequences which stem from that. The state doesn’t really have an interest in the religious side of it, but is important for the legal side.

 

[LittleDeb]

I have to agree with dulcissima. Civil divorce is an impediment to marriage, but not to dating. Non-Catholics who wish to have their former marriage examined do not fall under the authority of the Church unless they wish to marry a Catholic.

In other words, the Church Tribunal will not review a case unless the person is either A. Catholic, B. wishing to become Catholic, or C. wishing to marry a Catholic.

All of this confusion is why I think that the decision to examine for nullity *only *after civil divorce is just wrong. And that the presumption of validity for ALL cases is misguided. The Tribunal process is a discipline, meaning it *can *be changed.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have to agree with dulcissima. Civil divorce is an impediment to marriage, but not to dating. Non-Catholics who wish to have their former marriage examined do not fall under the authority of the Church unless they wish to marry a Catholic.

In other words, the Church Tribunal will not review a case unless the person is either A. Catholic, B. wishing to become Catholic, or C. wishing to marry a Catholic.

All of this confusion is why I think that the decision to examine for nullity *only *after civil divorce is just wrong. And that the presumption of validity for ALL cases is misguided. The Tribunal process is a discipline, meaning it *can *be changed.

But while it can be changed it is what we have, as Catholics, and it carries with it the force of Law within the Church. Until the tribunal rules the Church views a person as validly married so they should not be dating.

 

[LittleDeb]

But while it can be changed it is what we have, as Catholics, and it carries with it the force of Law within the Church. Until the tribunal rules the Church views a person as validly married so they should not be dating.

So how do we explain the current format (US) that includes the place for a non-Catholic to place the name of the Catholic they wish to marry, right on the form for decree of nullity?

 

[lizaanne]

Honest to goodness - how many pages now, to say NO?

Look folks - there is ZERO gray area here.

His is MARRIED!!! Married people DO NOT DATE!!

Compassion this, eyes of Church that, opinion this, facts that - it does not matter. He is MARRIED - and married people DO NOT DATE!!

They don’t talk about dating, they don’t pretend they are dating, they don’t pretend they are single, they don’t have girlfriends.

They act MARRIED! Period. This discussion should have ended with one response to him - NO!

Sheesh. This has to be one of the least complicated questions that show up on this forum, and yet it can go on for pages and pages of insanity of people giving misleading and uninformed opinions on something that has absolutely nothing to do with opinion but is clear and nonnegotiable.

CorvetteGuy - NO. You can not date when you are married. And until or unless you have a declaration of nullity in your hot little hands, you are married.

~Liza

 

[lizaanne]

So how do we explain the current format (US) that includes the place for a non-Catholic to place the name of the Catholic they wish to marry, right on the form for decree of nullity?

Because in some cases a couple may be in an invalid marriage and wishing to make things right. If a couple had a wedding without benefit of having a previous marriage declared null, then they need to make it right. They are currently not married to each other - but wish to be if they are found to be free to marry.

This does NOT mean that it is ok to date while awaiting the decision of the petition.

~Liza

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So how do we explain the current format (US) that includes the place for a non-Catholic to place the name of the Catholic they wish to marry, right on the form for decree of nullity?

One because a non-catholic can not apply for a decree of nullity with out either being in the process of becoming a Catholic, which they would most likely have to wait, or wanting to marry a Catholic.

This shows that the Church makes allowances for people who do not do as they should be doing, after all we are all sinners and the Church knows this. There was a time when the Church would not allow Catholics to marry non-catholics.

 

[LittleDeb]

Liza,

You know I have a ton of respect for your opinions. But I have to disagree with your statement.

Corvette Guy is *presumed *married. Big difference. If the Tribunal declares him not married, then he never was to begin with. He had a civil wedding and a civil divorce if his marriage is declared invalid.

That is why I hold that dating is probably not a good idea in case he actually *is *married, but it is not so cut and dried as a flat out no.

Since his case is in the process for nullity we have good reason to believe that there is a high probability that he in fact is not married.

 

[LittleDeb]

One because a non-catholic can not apply for a decree of nullity with out either being in the process of becoming a Catholic, which they would most likely have to wait, or wanting to marry a Catholic.

This shows that the Church makes allowances for people who do not do as they should be doing, after all we are all sinners and the Church knows this. There was a time when the Church would not allow Catholics to marry non-catholics.

Again, a discipline not to marry non-Catholics. While not often wise, it is not sinful to do so.

I am not making an emotional appeal here. I am asking for someone to show why he shouldn’t date. All we really have is the Church teaching that all marriage “enjoys the favor of validity.” Why?

Two drunk people stand up in Vegas and mumble through their vows and that enjoys the favor of validity? (Wild example I know, but I am not making my point very clear otherwise.)

He has been waiting for a year for the Tribunal to hear his case! The Tribunal is backed up to no end hearing the cases of the two drunk people from Vegas. Why does he have to continue to wait?

 

[lizaanne]

Liza,

You know I have a ton of respect for your opinions. But I have to disagree with your statement.

Thank you - I do appreciate that.

Corvette Guy is *presumed *married. Big difference. If the Tribunal declares him not married, then he never was to begin with.

I see no difference at all. Married is married. There is no gray are there. It’s like being a little pregnant - you either are or you are not.

I’ve been through the process - I know that there is no gray area. You are not to date or set wedding plans unless you are free to marry.

Since his case is in the process for nullity we have good reason to believe that there is a high probability that he in fact is not married.

This is absolutely not correct. There can be no assumption made at all just because he has a petition going through the process. There are those who are found to be validly married via the tribunal - that is the very purpose of the process! It is extremely dangerous to assume that just because his petition was allowed to proceed that he will be found free to marry.

I love ya Deb - but I have to disagree with you on this one.

~Liza

 

[dulcissima]

I had posted this in the other thread that was linked in Post #3, but I will post it here again. This was the advice that I got from my priest. He has this linked to the parish web page.

What about dating a new partner after your divorce
but before the Declaration of Nullity is
finalized? This is a sensitive area. Obviously a divorced
person should socialize by starting and
maintaining friendships. That is simply the way
God made us. But how dating occurs is important.
Dating can mean different things to different
people. It can mean ordinary socializing or it can
mean socializing for the purpose of finding a marriage
partner. Obviously, some situations are
more romantically powerful than others so care
must be taken to be honest about what is being
communicated by our actions not only to our
dating partner but also to others. Obviously, the
opinions of others should not dictate our actions
but they should not be simply dismissed either.
How you approach dating friends after a divorce
demands a lot of self-honesty from both partners.
We have to honestly acknowledge that the
first bond still exists so it would not be fair to
seek a marriage partner while it remains uncertain
whether the first marriage will be discovered
to be null.

stpaschal.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=193&Itemid=182

I think answering the OP’s question with a No is good advice, but I do think it is an oversimplification as far as what is required of him to be a Catholic in good standing.

I just don’t think it is reasonable to tell a divorced person that they must live exactly as if they were still married, when clearly that is not possible since they are divorced. Getting out and socializing with persons of the same or the opposite sex is an important part of the healing process following a divorce. To have to hold relationships to the exact same scrutiny as one who is currently living a conjugal life with their spouse is a bit extreme, especially if they have worked with their pastor on their annulment, have a good understanding of their case, and have received pastoral advice on how they can proceed with their life while waiting for a decision from the Tribunal. Yes, we need a Tribunal decision before entering into a marriage commitment, but not for going out to dinner.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Liza,

You know I have a ton of respect for your opinions. But I have to disagree with your statement.

Corvette Guy is *presumed *married. Big difference. If the Tribunal declares him not married, then he never was to begin with. He had a civil wedding and a civil divorce if his marriage is declared invalid.

That is why I hold that dating is probably not a good idea in case he actually *is *married, but it is not so cut and dried as a flat out no.

Since his case is in the process for nullity we have good reason to believe that there is a high probability that he in fact is not married.

Just because a case is in process does not mean there is a high probability that it will be ruled that a sacramental marriage was not present.

Also there can be other issues that come up.

A couple I know entered the process and it was determined that a sacramental marriage was not present but the tribunal and bishop took it a step further and ruled that the mental state of both individuals precludes them from ever entering into a sacramental marriage and both are barred from ever marrying within the Catholic Church.

 

[LittleDeb]

This is absolutely not correct. There can be no assumption made at all just because he has a petition going through the process. There are those who are found to be validly married via the tribunal - that is the very purpose of the process! It is extremely dangerous to assume that just because his petition was allowed to proceed that he will be found free to marry.

I love ya Deb - but I have to disagree with you on this one.

~Liza

Okay, point taken here. But I do want to address this previous point which actually clarifies what I am trying to say. I like your analogy here:

I see no difference at all. Married is married. There is no gray are there. It’s like being a little pregnant - you either are or you are not.

I’ve been through the process - I know that there is no gray area. You are not to date or set wedding plans unless you are free to marry.

I totally agree that it is like being pregnant you are or you are not. One can be *presumed *pregnant and act with caution, by say not drinking, but if she was never pregnant to begin with, she has not harmed anyone if she did something a pregnant woman shouldn’t do.

Setting wedding plans and dating are very different things.