Can u date awaiting on anullment?

[Irish_Becca]

Ifrish Becca, if you are going through an annulment do you have to also file for a civil divorce also? I thought You only had to do the annulment and not the divorce? Love of Christ Nancy

You have to be civilly divorced to file for the annulment, but there is a ton of paperwork to fill out. Really, I am on the fifth typed page of one of the questions, and I am only about halfway through. It is actually very painful to dredge up these memories, things I would rather forget. But, it has to be done, and I am blessed to have the support of a wonderful priest.

 

[dborer42]

LittleDeb,

Granted, there are problems with people’s understanding of marriage (where were/are our bishops and priests?) but if you question that which you call a loose definition of marriage as having the favor of law, then isn’t that basically taking the opposite view, that invalidity of marriage is to be presumed. Wouldn’t that be analogous to “guilty until proven innocent?”

While I sometimes fail at this, I do try to be precise in what I say. That being the case, I did not say I agree that tribunals are fallible. It’s not a matter of whether I agree or not. The fact is, tribunal decision are not protected by infallibility. Agree or disagree doesn’t change the reality.

As to the time it takes to determine validity, again, I said no such thing as to the “goodness” of the time it takes. But again, you seem to be framing the question as declaring an invalid marriage, invalid, when in fact, until an investigation comes to completion, you do not know that the marriage is invalid. I’m not saying intentionally stall the proceedings, just to let someone “twist in the wind,” if you see it that way. But, is it anymore just, for the sake of truth, to just rush through the process and “give” out annulments? Would rushing through the nullity process that I have been forced into by my wife, just so she could obtain an annulment, truth be damned, be just?

You keep falling into making the presumption in favor of invalidity. You’ve already made the judgement that “these people only appear to be married.” You assume that, but you don’t know that.

Again, I’ve made no statement as to whether I think it is okay to make people wait years to find out if their marriage is valid or not. But, I noticed that you did not address my questioning about why we have so little trust in God’s faithfulness. If we really trusted in God’s goodness, wouldn’t we be faithful, whether the investigation into our marriages took 6 months or 6 years? Instead, it seems like we’re afraid we’re going to be cheated. Out of what? Time? Love? Cannot God give abundantly to those who remain faithful in things small and great alike?

I thank you for recognizing that I was trying to be kind with the words I wrote. They weren’t being directed specifically towards you, (but of course they weren’t to exclude you, either) but towards all who find themselves in this situation. It is also directed towards me. I have to trust God through all this, as well.

 

[LittleDeb]

LittleDeb,

Granted, there are problems with people’s understanding of marriage (where were/are our bishops and priests?) but if you question that which you call a loose definition of marriage as having the favor of law, then isn’t that basically taking the opposite view, that invalidity of marriage is to be presumed. Wouldn’t that be analogous to “guilty until proven innocent?”

I totally agree, where are our bishops and priests? Some are still so faithful, but they are not the popular ones and they are harder to find. “Guilty until proven innocent” is a fair analogy. I will address it below.

While I sometimes fail at this, I do try to be precise in what I say. That being the case, I did not say I agree that tribunals are fallible. It’s not a matter of whether I agree or not. The fact is, tribunal decision are not protected by infallibility. Agree or disagree doesn’t change the reality.

True. Sorry, I meant the same thing.

As to the time it takes to determine validity, again, I said no such thing as to the “goodness” of the time it takes. But again, you seem to be framing the question as declaring an invalid marriage, invalid, when in fact, until an investigation comes to completion, you do not know that the marriage is invalid. I’m not saying intentionally stall the proceedings, just to let someone “twist in the wind,” if you see it that way. But, is it anymore just, for the sake of truth, to just rush through the process and “give” out annulments? Would rushing through the nullity process that I have been forced into by my wife, just so she could obtain an annulment, truth be damned, be just?

You keep falling into making the presumption in favor of invalidity. You’ve already made the judgement that “these people only appear to be married.” You assume that, but you don’t know that.

I do favor the presumption of invalidity in many cases. (But not in any Catholic cases.) That is why I opened the other thread. I think we have gone too far with ecumenism in declaring any two people standing up and saying vows, “married.” My point was that Catholics are made to wait because the tribunal is investigating cases that appear so blatantly invalid. They are waiting years and many are then declared invalid. That huge wait seems cruel no matter what the outcome.

Again, I’ve made no statement as to whether I think it is okay to make people wait years to find out if their marriage is valid or not. But, I noticed that you did not address my questioning about why we have so little trust in God’s faithfulness. If we really trusted in God’s goodness, wouldn’t we be faithful, whether the investigation into our marriages took 6 months or 6 years? Instead, it seems like we’re afraid we’re going to be cheated. Out of what? Time? Love? Cannot God give abundantly to those who remain faithful in things small and great alike?

On this point you are so right. When my (now) hubby was going through the process he couldn’t get a single day off of work to go in and give his interview. When the tribunal said he would just have to wait a year until the interview process rolled around again I just plain blew a gasket! My now hubby was the one who had enough faith. He said he would wait and that it would be worth the wait. Bless his wonderful heart! The tribunal finally relented and someone stayed late one night so he could go in after work.

I thank you for recognizing that I was trying to be kind with the words I wrote. They weren’t being directed specifically towards you, (but of course they weren’t to exclude you, either) but towards all who find themselves in this situation. It is also directed towards me. I have to trust God through all this, as well.

My hardest part was conforming my will to the Church when a fallible arm was in charge. If the fallible tribunal declared his former marriage valid I would have to accept that no matter how much I disagreed. Acceptance without understanding has never been a strong point of mine. At the time I wouldn’t have thought DH would appeal it. But now knowing him, he probably would have taken it all the way to Rome if he had to.

 

[dulcissima]

David,

I just wanted to let you know that I have been praying for you today as you work to defend your marriage. I think that you express yourself very well, and I believe you will be taken seriously by the Tribunal. I don’t think your case sounds like the standard fare that they have become accustomed to dealing with.

I am really sorry that you are having to go through all of this, and I really admire the way that you are bravely and faithfully handling this.

Do you ever pray the Memorare? May our Blessed Mother comfort and strengthen you.

Mary

 

[dborer42]

Thank you, Mary.

I usually pray the rosary. For some time now, I have also been adding the St. Michael Prayer to the end of my rosary, for surely we are in a battle against evil. I don’t mean just regarding the divorce issue, but everything. Thanks again for your prayers.

David

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

You have to be civilly divorced to file for the annulment, but there is a ton of paperwork to fill out. Really, I am on the fifth typed page of one of the questions, and I am only about halfway through. It is actually very painful to dredge up these memories, things I would rather forget. But, it has to be done, and I am blessed to have the support of a wonderful priest.

Thank you, Are you doing what they call a prosey divorce? In other words are you doing your own? If you do you will save money, but the other person has to agree and sign all the papers ETC. Can a Catholic do this? Or do you get the papers from the priest? A regular divorce should only take a few months unless it is contested, but you say you have to do this annulment also? boy that is hard. That is only if you have your marriage Blessed? the priest here does not talk to you much at all, he is to busy, i have no idea what he is going to do realy because he never gets in touch with anyone alway’s claims he’s to busy. I cannot just ask him any question i want he will say make an appointment. I am about ready to go out of my area to another church. but it would be a drive in winter. Love of Christ Nancy

 

[dsulpizio]

Best yet: wear the wedding ring because without an anullment (filed for or not), you are unavailable and should not be ‘acting single’…period!

 

[Ailina]

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

Heh. That is exactly why I am going through the annulment process. My ex-husband was dating and wanting to expand his dating, and wanted me to start dating other men too, all while still married. Some married people do this apparently; it is called an open marriage.

What are my chances of annulment, do you figure? My ex is so clearly lacking in the understanding of sacramental marriage. I am not dating, because until the Tribunal makes it’s ruling, I am still considered married, despite the fact that my civilly divorced husband is dating. If I start dating before a decision is made, I might as well have stayed married and taken the ex up on his offer to date!

 

[dborer42]

Here is a reply from to the same question from Catholic Answers own Fr. Vincent Serpa:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=124789

Until it proven that your marriage is null, the Church still considers you to me married and owe fidelity to your spouse—regardless of his actions. Knowing this, to date while still married is a mortal sin.

This bears repeating:

…to date while still married is a mortal sin.

I hope we all have enough knowledge of Catholic teaching to know what happens if we die in a state of mortal sin. Please don’t do this.

 

[Ailina]

Here is a reply from to the same question from Catholic Answers own Fr. Vincent Serpa:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=124789

This bears repeating:

…to date while still married is a mortal sin.

I hope we all have enough knowledge of Catholic teaching to know what happens if we die in a state of mortal sin. Please don’t do this.

Yet, it seems to me that I read in another thread that adultery is only considered a GRAVE sin, not a mortal one. I guess maybe it depends on whether you are dating while undergoing an annulment or just having an affair. How weird!

 

[dborer42]

Yet, it seems to me that I read in another thread that adultery is only considered a GRAVE sin, not a mortal one. I guess maybe it depends on whether you are dating while undergoing an annulment or just having an affair. How weird!

Ailina,

A grave sin IS a mortal sin. And to die in grave, mortal sin will separate one from God for eternity.

 

[kage_ar]

Yet, it seems to me that I read in another thread that adultery is only considered a GRAVE sin, not a mortal one. I guess maybe it depends on whether you are dating while undergoing an annulment or just having an affair. How weird!

To clarify, in order for a sin to be a mortal sin, three conditions must be met…

The action must be grave matter (and adultery is grave matter)

You must have full knowledge that it is sin (most people over the age of reason know adultery is a sin)

You must do it of your own free will (no one held a gun to your head and FORCED you to commit adultery)

 

[LittleDeb]

Here is where I am still stuck. How can one commit adultery if neither party is actually married?

That’s my point.

I admit I have a different opinion on Catholic annulments vs. non-Catholic ones. Since a Catholic one has all the ear-marks of a marriage, I agree, it does hold favor of law. But a secular wedding? Why does it hold favor of law?

In a secular wedding they say, “until death do us part.” But that isn’t actually true. It is a civil contract in which either party can leave at any time. Why does the Church uphold civil law that is in direct violation of Catholic law?

The Church didn’t used to recognize civil marriage. But, I am off-topic here since the OP is Catholic. I need to give up.

 

[dborer42]

Here is where I am still stuck. How can one commit adultery if neither party is actually married?

I’m not quite sure I understand where your question is coming from? We were talking about dating being a mortal sin. Someone else tossed out the question of adultery as only being a grave sin. The point I made is that a grave sin and mortal sin are the same thing. Nonetheless, if what you mean is how can a (for example) Protestant couple married in their Protestant church commit adultery when neither party is actually married, then you are making a presumption you can’t know. Protestants can be in a valid marriage.

If you mean a non-Catholic couple married by a Justice of the Peace, you still make a presumption you can’t know. A natural marriage can also be valid. A non-Catholic marriage may not be sacramental, but can still be valid. Validity is the issue, not sacramentality. Otherwise, there would be no need to go through the annulment process at all if the couple were not both Catholics married in the Catholic Church.

And, of course, in either of these examples, if the marriages are later investigated and determined to be null, that doesn’t mean all of the sudden their conjugal relations constituted adultery (which from your question they couldn’t do as they were never married), nor did it constitute fornication (which from the implications you raised would be the correct sin for sex between two people not married, not adultery). As I said, it wouldn’t be fornication, either, because the marriage, entered in good faith by at least one of the parties, would be considered a putative marriage.

 

[chevalier]

I admit I have a different opinion on Catholic annulments vs. non-Catholic ones. Since a Catholic one has all the ear-marks of a marriage, I agree, it does hold favor of law. But a secular wedding? Why does it hold favor of law?

That marriage can be valid unless it’s two Catholics marrying without dispensation from form. Because of this, the process for establishing the nullity of such a marriage is simplified - it’s basically a document review. Still, a person can’t do away with that marriage on his or her own authority - the Church needs to get involved.

By the way, sometimes there’s a general dispensation from form in place, so a secular marriage can actually be a sacramental one, barring exclusion by a party’s positive will.

 

[LittleDeb]

And, of course, in either of these examples, if the marriages are later investigated and determined to be null, that doesn’t mean all of the sudden their conjugal relations constituted adultery (which from your question they couldn’t do as they were never married), nor did it constitute fornication (which from the implications you raised would be the correct sin for sex between two people not married, not adultery). As I said, it wouldn’t be fornication, either, because the marriage, entered in good faith by at least one of the parties, would be considered a putative marriage.

This gets to the heart of the question I am asking. Since the US tribunals wait for civil divorce, it seems that the tribunal is saying that civil law trumps canon law. Does canon law consider the putative marriage ended by the civil court or by the date of declaration of nullity?

Our society’s strange definition of “dating” is also problematic for me in this discussion. I agree that titles of “girlfriend/boyfriend” are inappropriate as is the physical affection reserved for singles. But to make people wait years and years for simple social interaction seems unnecessarily cruel. But since I have maintained my friendships with male friends even throughout my marriage, I think that is causing my perspective to be different.

 

[lizaanne]

This gets to the heart of the question I am asking. Since the US tribunals wait for civil divorce, it seems that the tribunal is saying that civil law trumps canon law. Does canon law consider the putative marriage ended by the civil court or by the date of declaration of nullity?

Our society’s strange definition of “dating” is also problematic for me in this discussion. I agree that titles of “girlfriend/boyfriend” are inappropriate as is the physical affection reserved for singles. But to make people wait years and years for simple social interaction seems unnecessarily cruel. But since I have maintained my friendships with male friends even throughout my marriage, I think that is causing my perspective to be different.

I think you are getting hung up on the whole dating vs. having friends distinction. No one is saying that a person can’t have friends or can’t socialize. This is indeed a very fine line, but there is behavior that is appropriate for a married person and some that is not.

As a married woman would you do the following:
= Go out to dinner on a regular basis with a man who is not your husband?
= Go to Mass every Sunday with a man who is not your husband?
= Attend social events with a man who is not your husband, and your husband is not present?
= Go on vacations with a man who is not your husband, even staying in separate rooms?

All of these things are non-sexual. All of these things are social activities. But I dare say that you would not feel comfortable doing these things as a married woman, leaving your husband behind. This is dating, and it is NOT appropriate behavior for a married person. If you would not do this while married, you should not be doing this while awaiting the decision of the Tribunal. To do so endangers one’s soul, and provides the opportunity for scandal.

Does it stink to have to wait for the decision of the Tribunal? Yes - it surely does. But is it the right and proper thing to do? Absolutely. Sometimes we have to open ourselves to the will of God, be patient and trusting, and not assume we know more than the Church.

And yes - this absolutely must apply to non-Catholics. A marriage can be just as valid between two non-Catholics as it is between two Catholics. This is not ecumenism, this is God’s law which applies to everyone, regardless of what they may or may not believe.

~Liza

 

[rpp]

I think you are getting hung up on the whole dating vs. having friends distinction. No one is saying that a person can’t have friends or can’t socialize. This is indeed a very fine line, but there is behavior that is appropriate for a married person and some that is not.

As a married woman would you do the following:
= Go out to dinner on a regular basis with a man who is not your husband?
= Go to Mass every Sunday with a man who is not your husband?
= Attend social events with a man who is not your husband, and your husband is not present?
= Go on vacations with a man who is not your husband, even staying in separate rooms?

All of these things are non-sexual. All of these things are social activities. But I dare say that you would not feel comfortable doing these things as a married woman, leaving your husband behind. This is dating, and it is NOT appropriate behavior for a married person. If you would not do this while married, you should not be doing this while awaiting the decision of the Tribunal. To do so endangers one’s soul, and provides the opportunity for scandal.

Does it stink to have to wait for the decision of the Tribunal? Yes - it surely does. But is it the right and proper thing to do? Absolutely. Sometimes we have to open ourselves to the will of God, be patient and trusting, and not assume we know more than the Church.

And yes - this absolutely must apply to non-Catholics. A marriage can be just as valid between two non-Catholics as it is between two Catholics. This is not ecumenism, this is God’s law which applies to everyone, regardless of what they may or may not believe.

~Liza

As a divorced man, who has an annulment, I have to side with Lizanne here. I made the mistake of dating before I got my annulment and it was a spiritual disaster.

Speaking from experience, the best teacher, it is absolutely wrong and a grave sin, for a divorced person to date prior to receiving the declaration of nullity. If for no other reason, a person needs time to recover from the trauma of a divorce.

 

[LittleDeb]

As a married woman would you do the following:
= Go out to dinner on a regular basis with a man who is not your husband?
= Go to Mass every Sunday with a man who is not your husband?
= Attend social events with a man who is not your husband, and your husband is not present?
= Go on vacations with a man who is not your husband, even staying in separate rooms?

These are good points. I did have to laugh because of having to change those behaviors with some of my male friends. I used to do these kinds of things all the time with male friends, but had to cease when I married simply to prevent scandal.

To do so endangers one’s soul, and provides the opportunity for scandal.

This bears repeating. I can see that I certainly created scandal while my now husband was waiting for annulment. I wish I saw a solution though. I cannot fathom non-Catholics approaching the tribunal unless they wished to marry a Catholic. Even fewer would be as amazing as my husband and file just to “date” a Catholic (whatever definition that might be.)

I still have hopes that the US tribunal would follow the rest of the world and examine for nullity while people are still civilly married. I still see that as a root cause of the problem.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

As a divorced man, who has an annulment, I have to side with Lizanne here. I made the mistake of dating before I got my annulment and it was a spiritual disaster.

Speaking from experience, the best teacher, it is absolutely wrong and a grave sin, for a divorced person to date prior to receiving the declaration of nullity. If for no other reason, a person needs time to recover from the trauma of a divorce.

Hello rpp, What ranks higher, the civil divorce or the annulment from the church? Now I figure this, If the church cannot annul without the divorce first then wouldn’t it mean the civil is higher ranked then the church? And if the civil was higher then wouldn’t it mean that you are realy divorced before the church say’s you are? i am not asking this to be funny I am realy listening to you and trying to learn what the church teaches and why. Love of Christ Nancy