Converts – Annulments and Mortal Sin – need some help

[JRKH]

I’m having trouble getting my head around something…It’s kind of “spraining my brain”

Suppose a person lives their entire life in a protestant church – never knowing Catholic doctrine on mortal sin - marries in a protestant church – gets divorced and then remarried in the same protestant church – with the approval of their pastor etc…
In all ways they have been taught that they and their marriage is right with the Lord.

Now one or both members of this marriage wish to come into the Catholic Church….

Are they considered to be in Mortal sin?? I wouldn’t think so since they acted properly within their faith tradition and understanding and therefore could not have met the conditions of “full knowledge and intent” necessary for mortal sin.

Likewise, flowing from this issue of knowledge and intent, why require an annulment?

Or perhaps I should ask are such considerations taken into account in the annulment process?
How difficult is it to obtain an annulment for someone wishing to come into the Church?

It seems to me that for people coming into the church – wanting to put their sinful past behind them – some sort of allowance needs to be made.

I’m not explaining this very well…. like I said it’s sort of spraining my brain.

Any (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated and perhaps others can help me to put this into perspective.

Thanks

Peace
James

 

[TheRealJuliane]

All I can say is, they took those original vows before God, to stay married until DEATH us do part, and God doesn’t grant divorces, so…



Faith traditions or not, unless there was some serious impediment to those original vows, they are still married and yes, they would be in mortal sin.

 

[Warrior1979]

I disagree. If these people were taught and always believed that they can remarry, and did so, there is no mortal sin. Catholics can argue that it is objectively sinful. However, there is no knowledge that what they did it a mortal sin, nor is there any intent to commit mortal sin.

 

[JRKH]

All I can say is, they took those original vows before God, to stay married until DEATH us do part, and God doesn’t grant divorces, so…



Faith traditions or not, unless there was some serious impediment to those original vows, they are still married and yes, they would be in mortal sin.

Could you explain the reasoning for saying they are in mortal sin given the three requirements for mortal sin? Grave matter is a gimme but what about full knowledge and consent to the sin of divorce…
Remember that - in my OP I stated that they had worked within and with the approval of their pastor (spiritual adviser)

Thanks

Peace
James

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m
Are they considered to be in Mortal sin?? I wouldn’t think so since they acted properly within their faith tradition and understanding and therefore could not have met the conditions of “full knowledge and intent” necessary for mortal sin.

Likewise, flowing from this issue of knowledge and intent, why require an annulment?

es

objectively, yes, but remember the conditions for mortal sin, which require full knowledge and full free will consent and intention. so subjectively, no. But when during the course of their preparation they learn the Church teaching, they will know, and cannot receive the other sacraments knowing they are not validly married. Why require an annulment? Not as a penance or punishment for sin, but as the first step in the remedy for a condition into which they entered innocently, but now presents a barrier to their initiation.

 

[JRKH]

objectively, yes, but remember the conditions for mortal sin, which require full knowledge and full free will consent and intention. so subjectively, no. But when during the course of their preparation they learn the Church teaching, they will know, and cannot receive the other sacraments knowing they are not validly married. Why require an annulment? Not as a penance or punishment for sin, but as the first step in the remedy for a condition into which they entered innocently, but now presents a barrier to their initiation.

Thanks Annie -
I can always count on your having good answers.

Without getting into the matters of “objectively and subjectively” - What I see is this - and you mention it above - there condition is one they, “entered innocently”.
Now they know that their past behavior was sinful (but not mortally since they have not met the requirements of full knowledge) and they are willing to confess their past sin and commit to never sinning again.

My trouble is trying to understand how this is different than other sin - Why is this condition a barrier to entering the Church when other - even grievous past sins would not be?

Peace
James

 

[anp1215]

They most likely would not meet the conditions for mortal sin since they honestly thought they had done nothing wrong and were living according to their faith. But the Church recognizes marriages between non-Catholics as well, I would think because the Lord did not make any distinction when he preached on the matter in the New Testament. That is why they would still be considered married to their first spouse and must see if that marriage could be annulled.

 

[silicasandra]

Thanks Annie -
I can always count on your having good answers.

Without getting into the matters of “objectively and subjectively” - What I see is this - and you mention it above - there condition is one they, “entered innocently”.
Now they know that their past behavior was sinful (but not mortally since they have not met the requirements of full knowledge) and they are willing to confess their past sin and commit to never sinning again.

My trouble is trying to understand how this is different than other sin - Why is this condition a barrier to entering the Church when other - even grievous past sins would not be?

Peace
James

If a person continues to have marital relations with the “new spouse”, then it’s my understanding that it’s not a past sin at all (even if it was innocently begun.)

 

[JRKH]

If a person continues to have marital relations with the “new spouse”, then it’s my understanding that it’s not a past sin at all (even if it was innocently begun.)

I get that - but I think that the problem (for me) comes in with what is required to settle the matter for entry into the Church.

I know of no other “sin” - even sin in which others were grievously hurt or great damage done, where a simple confession is not sufficient to clear the way for entry into the Church.

And I can CERTAINLY see the need for an annulment in the case where one party was Catholic, or both parties were “fallen away” Catholics etc…but I’m trying to bet my head around how this works for people who were ignorant of the requirements etc when the actions occurred…Why are these held to the same standard as those who “should have known better?”

Peace
James

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

My trouble is trying to understand how this is different than other sin - Why is this condition a barrier to entering the Church when other - even grievous past sins would not be?

When baptized people enter the Catholic Church they go to confession first and are absolved of the sins they have committed since baptism. In order to be absolved they, like anyone else going to confession, must be sorry for what they’ve done and have the intention not to commit the sin again.

The problem with an invalid marriage comes when you look at the intention not to commit the sin again. The couple is going to continue to live as spouses. That’s a problem if you consider the Church’s teaching that they are still married to other people.

The only way to remedy their situation is to investigate their prior marriages. If they are found to be invalid then the couple can marry each other and everything is good.

A sort of silly comparison: Suppose you confessed that you were running an extension cord to your neighbor’s house and getting all your electricity from your neighbor. And then after leaving the church you leave the extension cord in place and continue getting all your power from your neighbor. What’s the point of confessing the sin if you’re not going to change the situation? The electricity thief needs to pull the plug to change things. The couple in the invalid marriage equally needs to pull the plug by having their marriage put right.

 

[Cider]

And I can CERTAINLY see the need for an annulment in the case where one party was Catholic, or both parties were “fallen away” Catholics etc…but I’m trying to bet my head around how this works for people who were ignorant of the requirements etc when the actions occurred…Why are these held to the same standard as those who “should have known better?”

Peace
James

But an annulment does not make a prior marriage invalid, it just recognizes the reality that there was no valid marriage to begin with. So either their first marriage is valid or not and that needs to be investigated by the marriage tribunal.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I know of no other “sin” - even sin in which others were grievously hurt or great damage done, where a simple confession is not sufficient to clear the way for entry into the Church.

I understand what you are saying. But, look at it this way: once the couple have made enquiries with regards to entering the Church and now know that it is sinful to leave with their current spouse. They could confess this and receive absolution. If, however, they intend to continue to live together as husband and wife they will continue to sin. It is not in effect past sin that is a bar to their entry into the Church it is the fact that they are still living in sin and will continue to do so that presents the problem.

 

[Leegal]

I’m having trouble getting my head around something…It’s kind of “spraining my brain”

Suppose a person lives their entire life in a protestant church – never knowing Catholic doctrine on mortal sin - marries in a protestant church – gets divorced and then remarried in the same protestant church – with the approval of their pastor etc…
In all ways they have been taught that they and their marriage is right with the Lord.

Now one or both members of this marriage wish to come into the Catholic Church….

Are they considered to be in Mortal sin?? I wouldn’t think so since they acted properly within their faith tradition and understanding and therefore could not have met the conditions of “full knowledge and intent” necessary for mortal sin.

Likewise, flowing from this issue of knowledge and intent, why require an annulment?

Or perhaps I should ask are such considerations taken into account in the annulment process?
How difficult is it to obtain an annulment for someone wishing to come into the Church?

It seems to me that for people coming into the church – wanting to put their sinful past behind them – some sort of allowance needs to be made.

I’m not explaining this very well…. like I said it’s sort of spraining my brain.

Any (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated and perhaps others can help me to put this into perspective.

Thanks

Peace
James

I don’t think they are in mortal sin. I understand neither is a Catholic, but one wishes to convert? I don’t see the mortal sin because the person had no knowledge of mortal sin at the time they undertook the marriages.

I’m unclear if they question has to do with being married and remarried again to each other in the Protestant Church (to the same partner), or one or another re-married another partner, in the same faith? I assume it’s the latter.

If they remarried the same marriage partner, I am at a loss for an answer. If they remarried in the Protestant Church, to a different partner, I would say an annullment would be required for the first marriage. I think the Church might consider whether this was a second marriage for both partners to other people, if one wishes to convert. I would consult with a priest.

I don’t think mortal sin is an issue here.

 

[Leegal]

I know of no other “sin” - even sin in which others were grievously hurt or great damage done, where a simple confession is not sufficient to clear the way for entry into the Church.

Peace
James

Abortion is an exception. A simple confession is not enough. An excommunication must be lifted too. There is another sin that also carries excommunication. Not the case here, just clarifying.

Your first post was not clear to me on the issue of annullment and who remarried and to whom they remarried? Remarried as a word is not sufficient for one to answer based upon a guess of 1) did they remarry the same partner?; 2) did they remarry another partner? and 3) what was the marital staus of the second partner if it was marriage to a different partner who is now the present spouse? You can be more specific with a priest. If you are entering the Church you will have to make a confession and your priest/confessor can answer the questions on the annullment and if one is required as I see it as a separate question from the concept of mortal sin.

But, I reiterate that I don’t see the mortal sin here.

 

[jimrob]

The position of the Catholic Church is that having sexual relations while a previous spouse is still alive is adulterous. It might be possible to regularise the second marriage if the first is capable of being annulled, but that means the first was not a valid marriage in the first place. Annulment is not the same as divorce and the grounds for declaring a previous marriage null and void are limited.

If a married couple wish to enter the Catholic Church while one or both have previous spouses from valid marriages, they will be required to abstain from sex and live as brother and sister.

That’s the official position, but the Church only expects everyone to do their very best. It may help you to “get your head around” the problem if you remember that it’s the adultery that’s sinful, not past serial bigamy.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I get that - but I think that the problem (for me) comes in with what is required to settle the matter for entry into the Church.

I know of no other “sin” - even sin in which others were grievously hurt or great damage done, where a simple confession is not sufficient to clear the way for entry into the Church.

And I can CERTAINLY see the need for an annulment in the case where one party was Catholic, or both parties were “fallen away” Catholics etc…but I’m trying to bet my head around how this works for people who were ignorant of the requirements etc when the actions occurred…Why are these held to the same standard as those who “should have known better?”

Peace
James

Hey,

As far as I understand, a simple confession would be enough - if the couple were to then live as brother and sister (until such time as they receive an annulment or indefinitely if none is possible).

Confession would cover all past actions. Past actions are not the issue. The issue would be that the couple is persisting in a state which they now know to be wrong. Entering into the state can be forgiven, and may not have been mortally sinful or sinful at all (even if it was objectively wrong), but continuing to act as though married when not is not just a sin done in the past that needs to be forgiven and moved on, but a continuous state of affairs which needs to be halted.

 

[asia53]

objectively, yes, but remember the conditions for mortal sin, which require full knowledge and full free will consent and intention. so subjectively, no. But when during the course of their preparation they learn the Church teaching, they will know, and cannot receive the other sacraments knowing they are not validly married. Why require an annulment? Not as a penance or punishment for sin, but as the first step in the remedy for a condition into which they entered innocently, but now presents a barrier to their initiation.

Exactly what I was told during my RCIA instruction.

 

[JRKH]

Let me toss out another angle here…That perhaps speaks to my confusion…

All of the below assumes Christian marriages…

A couple, both of whom are divorced from other partners, get married in a protestant Church. That protestant Church has accepted the divorces and permit new marriage.

The Catholic Church accepts the right of the protestant church to validly perform the wedding ceremony but does not accept that church’s jurisdiction in absolving the previous marriage and permitting the new marriage…

To me - this just seems problematic in trying to meet people where they are, forgiving their past sins made in ignorance, or in defective understanding and then moving on.

Those who say that they can convert so long as they promise to not have marital relations with their current spouse - I recognize that is the teaching, but I don’t understand WHY. What is the logic behind locking someone into an already dissolved marriage - it was dissolved through an act of acceptance by their previous church.

Still not understanding…

Peace
James

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Let me toss out another angle here…That perhaps speaks to my confusion…

All of the below assumes Christian marriages…

A couple, both of whom are divorced from other partners, get married in a protestant Church. That protestant Church has accepted the divorces and permit new marriage.

The Catholic Church accepts the right of the protestant church to validly perform the wedding ceremony but does not accept that church’s jurisdiction in absolving the previous marriage and permitting the new marriage…

To me - this just seems problematic in trying to meet people where they are, forgiving their past sins made in ignorance, or in defective understanding and then moving on.

Those who say that they can convert so long as they promise to not have marital relations with their current spouse - I recognize that is the teaching, but I don’t understand WHY. What is the logic behind locking someone into an already dissolved marriage - it was dissolved through an act of acceptance by their previous church.

Still not understanding…

Peace
James

The Church recognises Protestant marriages in a way it does not recognise say Anglican Confirmation. First of all the Church teaches that any one can baptise. Therefore if a man and woman are both baptised by Protestant ministers they are validly baptised (to avoid unnecessary digression we shall say the minister had the right intent and used the correct form and matter so the baptisms were valid).

The Church teaches that a man and woman are, at their own marriage, the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony. As non-Catholics they will not need to follow Catholic ecclesiastical law on the canonical form of marriage. However, as two validly baptised non-Catholic Christians their marriage is, the Catholic Church teaches, a sacrament. (Again, in order to avoid any unnecessary digression, let’s assume this marriage is valid.)

Finally, the couple consummate their marriage. The couple now have a ratified and consummated sacramental marriage. The Church teaches that their marriage is now indissoluble. Can you now see how the Church has an issue with their civil divorce and re-marriage?

Because they are not bound by Catholic law it is quite possible to say that these actions while they are Protestants do not fulfil all the requirements for sin to be classified as mortal (or grave) sin. Nevertheless, their marriage is in an irregular situation.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Those who say that they can convert so long as they promise to not have marital relations with their current spouse - I recognize that is the teaching, but I don’t understand WHY. What is the logic behind locking someone into an already dissolved marriage - it was dissolved through an act of acceptance by their previous church.

Still not understanding…

Peace
James

Because the catholic church says that they are living in adultery NOW even though they didn’t know it at the time of the remarriage. I don’t think it makes sense either but there it is.