Converts – Annulments and Mortal Sin – need some help

[Iron_Donkey]

…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.

The problem is that in their ignorance they have caused a situation to come about which is objectively bad. We cannot pretend bad situations are ok because the people didn’t think it was bad when they created them.

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.

The marriage was not dissolved - they just thought it was. This misinformation may be enough to prevent actions being sinful, but it does not make them ok, and certainly does not make it ok to continue in them.

As for the abstaining (in the absence of an annulment) - this is simply the only logical way to react to a bad situation that came about through ways which, while not permissible, are understandable. It’s not that they are required to abstain because they were misinformed and only now know the truth, it’s that they are required to abstain period and they only now know it and, in knowing it, have sinned if they do not do so.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I would also like to know the Protestant denomination which is so sanguine about divorce and remarriage - the ones I know of are very unhappy about divorce, if not condemning it quite so strongly as we Catholics. So, to me, your original scenario, where the couple gets divorced with the approval of their church, and remarries others, with the approval of their church, is intrinsically flawed. Protestants know that divorce goes against God’s will.

Or am I missing something?

 

[puzzleannie]

Thanks
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

the fact remains that they are living together as man and wife but they are not married if they have previous spouses still alive. They must request an annulment investigation of the previous marriage(s) and if it is found invalid from its inception, convalidate the current marriage. Otherwise they do knowingly enter into a state of mortal sin, because now they have learned the truth. Whether or not they knew before cannot change the facts of the case. This is not a punishment, it is a remedy. During all of this of course the will be working with the priest together, and as individuals, including confession and spiritual direction when the time comes. The priest may very well advise them to live “as brother and sister” until the situation is rectified, but that, of course, is none of our business, is it.

Suppose a man, separated at birth from his natural family, unknowingly married his sister. Of course neither of them sinned, but when the truth becomes known, they must separate, or remain in a state of sin. Extreme example, but it illustrates the point that knowledge alone does not make a matter sinful, it must also be gravely sinful in and of itself.

 

[TrueLight]

I would also like to know the Protestant denomination which is so sanguine about divorce and remarriage - the ones I know of are very unhappy about divorce, if not condemning it quite so strongly as we Catholics. So, to me, your original scenario, where the couple gets divorced with the approval of their church, and remarries others, with the approval of their church, is intrinsically flawed. Protestants know that divorce goes against God’s will.

Or am I missing something?

Some Protestant churches see it as a reality of the world we live in. They don’t love it, but they allow it and believe God understands. There are even some remarried pastors.

Some of the more conservative Protestant churches are really anti-divorce and it is a real scandal when a member of that church gets divorced.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I am not convinced that the parties should be applying for a declaration of nullity of their marriage (sometimes called annulment). If they are married a second, or subsequent time, then those marriages can be impugned on the grounds that the party(ies) were not free to marry. In other words one of them, at least, had the impediment of ligamen. Now, the original marriages: they should only be impugned if, at least, one of the parties has reason to impugn the marriage. Annulment should not be applied for as a matter of convenience to be rid of an inconvenient prior marriage bond.

 

[Leegal]

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.

Yes, but the questioner is not clear – not to me. There was no mortal sin while being a Protestant and having no knowledge of the Catholic Church. Now one party wishes to convert. If they continue to have relations, then the Catholic party will be committing a sin but there was no sin while being Protestant without knowledge of the sin of remarriage after civil divorce, which the Protestant Church allows.

Now, while one is considering or in process of conversion, continuing to have marital relations NOW puts the Catholic party in danger of the sin of adultery. Actually, if they are in the process of conversion, I would wonder why this has not already been addressed through the Church. Surely, it would have come up.

As I said, the situation in the OP is not clear. Please have the person consult with a priest if they are seriously considering conversion so as to not put their soul in grave danger of sin. I’m sure if they are considering conversion, they have access to a priest. A priest can better understand the situation and what constitutes an invalid or nullification of a prior marriage.

 

[Leegal]

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

Okay a bit clearer. Both parties have a prior marriage to others. It’s not that they have sinned in the past, but the one who is converting, if he/she accepts the teaching of the Church and wants to be within full unity with the Church, now must subject him or herself to those laws of the Catholic Faith that he/she has chosen.

Actually, the marriages were dissolved by civil authority. The Catholic Church will not now recognize those civil divorces – and both parties have a divorce in their history. That makes it more problematic for the one who is converting. It is adultery if they continue to live as man and wife, until the first marriages are annulled by the Church. They are Baptized and marriage to a Baptized person of another faith is recognized as a marriage – referring to the first marriages which were later dissolved by civil authority.

What has a priest said? Has the priest said that there can be no nullification of the prior marriages?

 

[Warrior1979]

I am not convinced that the parties should be applying for a declaration of nullity of their marriage (sometimes called annulment).

I’m not so sure either, but for different reasons. I find the whole annulment issue for potential converts confusing in the first place. It’s the imposition of Catholic rules on non-Catholics. If an annulment is granted, the couple was in fact free to marry, so I don’t understand why the second marriage isn’t recognized in this case.

Now, the original marriages: they should only be impugned if, at least, one of the parties has reason to impugn the marriage. Annulment should not be applied for as a matter of convenience to be rid of an inconvenient prior marriage bond.

I don’t agree. What the Church believes and what one of the spouses believes are not necessarily the same thing. If someone believes they were validly married in their first marriage, especially remarried potential converts who often don’t know or understand Catholic marriage, then they should proceed with the annulment (s).

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I’m not so sure either, but for different reasons. I find the whole annulment issue for potential converts confusing in the first place. It’s the imposition of Catholic rules on non-Catholics. If an annulment is granted, the couple was in fact free to marry, so I don’t understand why the second marriage isn’t recognized in this case.

I agree about the imposition of Catholic laws on non-Catholics. Somewhere the Code of Canon Law states that non-Catholics are not to be bound by purely ecclesiastical laws. Of course, everyone is bound by Divine Law, natural and positive. A commentary I have states that the Code to a certain extent contradicts itself because it often incorporates non-Catholics within the scope of its ecclesiastical laws on marriage.

I don’t agree. What the Church believes and what one of the spouses believes are not necessarily the same thing. If someone believes they were validly married in their first marriage, especially remarried potential converts who often don’t know or understand Catholic marriage, then they should proceed with the annulment (s).

I thought that my post might generate some response. I feel a little explanation is required. First, I agree that what the Church considers an invalid marriage may not be the same as what a couple believe to be invalid. Now what I was hoping my post said is that normally (from my reading on the subject) it is one of the spouse’s that impugn their own marriage. As an example, (if you are married) I could not say I think that your consent was defective. How could I possibly know that? So, I couldn’t impugn your marriage. You or your spouse would need to do that. Now to avoid giving the impression, as so many already hold, that annulment is just Catholic divorce should we really say because you are in a second civil marriage following a civil divorce with your first spouse still living you should apply for a declaration of nullity just to make everything neat and tidy. OR Should a person only impugn their own marriage if they have genuine reason to doubt their own consent; believe there was an impediment to their marriage from which no dispensation was granted; their was a defect of form.

I’d be interested in your thoughts on this.

 

[anp1215]

I would also like to know the Protestant denomination which is so sanguine about divorce and remarriage - the ones I know of are very unhappy about divorce, if not condemning it quite so strongly as we Catholics. So, to me, your original scenario, where the couple gets divorced with the approval of their church, and remarries others, with the approval of their church, is intrinsically flawed. Protestants know that divorce goes against God’s will.

Or am I missing something?

Which Protestant churches do you have experience with? Because my experience has been totally different. My old pastor at my non-denominational church performed 2nd, 3rd, 4th weddings. My grandpa was married to a divorced woman in their United Pentecostal church (very conservative Pentecostals, the one where the women don’t cut their hair and only wear dresses). My husband’s aunt was divorced (from a Baptist PASTOR who had an affair, a despicable and terrible ordeal) and remarried. In the last case, she and her new husband were married at her house, but I’m pretty sure it was by a pastor, and they are still practicing Protestants (I think Baptists or non-denominational). My brother in law is currently dating/living with a divorced woman who was married in the Pentecostal church (I believe UPC as well). My in-laws (non denominational, FIL is the administrative pastor at church) are really pushing for them to get married. They have no qualms about her divorce.

Anyway, thinking of all the divorced/remarried people I know, I can’t think of any that were discouraged/turned away from remarrying in their Protestant churches.

 

[puzzleannie]

I am not convinced that the parties should be applying for a declaration of nullity of their marriage (sometimes called annulment). If they are married a second, or subsequent time, then those marriages can be impugned on the grounds that the party(ies) were not free to marry…

the tribunal looks at the first marriage first, not the most recent. I am not sure what your point is. What you or I think about the hypothetical case OP posed is irrelevant. Two persons, previously married and divorced from third parties, now remarried to each other, now seek to become Catholic, so they must follow Catholic canon law and regularize their marriage situation before they can receive other sacraments. The timing of those sacraments will be coordinated with the convalidation (assuming all previous bonds are found to be invalid).

 

[1ke]

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.

This is where you have gone wrong.

Their first marriage has not be dissolved.

Nothing can dissolve a valid, sacramental marriage. Nothing but the death of one spouse. Civil divorce has NO bearing on the existence of the sacramental bond. None.

A decree of nullity is a finding of fact. If the first marriage had an impediment or a defect of intent or consent, then no sacrament took place and the person is free to marry another. If valid consent DID take place, and no impediments existed, then the first marriage is VALID and they CANNOT marry anyone else.

This is God’s law. It does not apply only to Catholics. It applies to ALL marriages between the baptized. It doesn’t matter whether they knew this or not. It doesn’t matter if their church taught this or not. It is a fact. They cannot enter another marriage whil validly married to another. This is Christ’s law.

If the marriage is a natural marriage (one or both unbaptized) then it is not completely indissoluable. The marriage can be dissolved in limited circumstances (see Pauline and Petrine Privilege). A natural marriage could also be found to be invalid due to a defect of consent or intent or an impediment.

 

[JRKH]

Okay a bit clearer. Both parties have a prior marriage to others. It’s not that they have sinned in the past, but the one who is converting, if he/she accepts the teaching of the Church and wants to be within full unity with the Church, now must subject him or herself to those laws of the Catholic Faith that he/she has chosen.

Actually, the marriages were dissolved by civil authority. The Catholic Church will not now recognize those civil divorces – and both parties have a divorce in their history. That makes it more problematic for the one who is converting. It is adultery if they continue to live as man and wife, until the first marriages are annulled by the Church. They are Baptized and marriage to a Baptized person of another faith is recognized as a marriage – referring to the first marriages which were later dissolved by civil authority.

What has a priest said? Has the priest said that there can be no nullification of the prior marriages?

In answer to your question…this is a general question on my part that was prompted by a thread where a person is wishing to convert but at present feels “on hold” due to this issue.
They have declined to go into detail about the matter and of course we respect that.
However - the thread got me thinking about this again and I thought I’d try to get some clarification.

Sorry that I have not been more clear - but partly it is because the matter is not really clear in my head…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

This is where you have gone wrong.

Their first marriage has not be dissolved.

Nothing can dissolve a valid, sacramental marriage. Nothing but the death of one spouse. Civil divorce has NO bearing on the existence of the sacramental bond. None.

Yes Ike you are right…dissolved was a bad word choice on my part. Mea Culpa.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I appreciate everyone’s efforts to help me out here though I can’t say that I am getting any closer to “grabbing” on to the reasoning…It’s probably my fault - I can be quite dense at times.

maybe this will let light for you all on my thinking.

A person steals $5000 and uses that money to start a business. He is never caught and now, 20 years later, that business is flourishing and has become his life’s work.
This person decides to enter the Catholic Church…He goes to confession and confesses “Stealing”…wham bam absolution - forgiven - no problem. Yet every dollar he makes off of his business is founded in this sin…A continuing sin…in a sense.
Yet, unless he were to mention the specifics no one would ever know - and heck HE might not even connect the dots to make reparation…Certainly the Priest would not likely withhold absolution.
This person is given the opportunity to start over - with a cleanly wiped slate. What is past is past, sins, errors, bad judgements, faulty faith beliefs, the whole works - except - except - for marriage.
With marriage it’s different…past mistakes must be uncovered and rectified before one can move forward - Unless - one is willing to live in “limbo” for however long it takes for the Tribunal to do it’s work…

It just strikes me that, with folks coming into the Church a clean slate should be a clean slate…and should include any marriage issues.

Does this make sense?? It just seems more charitable…

Of course if you are like me - a revert - then surely there is legitimate need for an annulment investigation.

Peace
James

 

[ruth0903]

JRKH, I am new to CAF and in RCIA. I was a Baptized as a child, attended church faithfully until my late teens, then married at age 19 to a young man who didn’t have any religious leanings. I didn’t even know if he was baptized. We were married in a Nazarene Church and married for 20 yrs. Long story short, divorced, and we both married other people (mine was many yrs later), About a year ago, I was moved to become a Catholic, thought this would be perfect since my husband was Catholic. Imagine the surprise when I learned what all had to be done, in regard to getting an annulment, etc.
I am currently in the process of this, but now my husband refuses to go through the annulment process, because “she would never agree to anything that would benefit me”. So here I am, absolutely in love with my new faith, but at times, having problems understanding all the rules… My realization is that I will never be able to be confirmed or receive Holy Communion or any Sacraments until this is resolved. I, too, thought that confessing my sins to God, was enough.
…Your discussion here has been most helpful…thank you,

 

[1ke]

With marriage it’s different…past mistakes must be uncovered and rectified before one can move forward - Unless - one is willing to live in “limbo” for however long it takes for the Tribunal to do it’s work…

It just strikes me that, with folks coming into the Church a clean slate should be a clean slate…and should include any marriage issues.

Does this make sense?? It just seems more charitable…

Of course if you are like me - a revert - then surely there is legitimate need for an annulment investigation.

Peace
James

It isn’t about forgiveness or sin at all. that is not the problem.

It is about the reality that the person is already married to someone. They cannot be married to anyone else.

 

[SMHW]

James, it seems to me that you are really asking a different question than what you seem to be stating.

Are you really asking why non-Catholic Christian Churches cannot grant rulings of nullity?

I think it needs to be pointed out that a Catholic ruling of nullity does not “annull” a marriage. The Church does not cause a marriage to *become *null. She investigates and determines that a putative marriage was *always *null. It is a statement that there never was a marriage to begin with (other than in the civil sense.) And sometimes she determines that the marriage is valid and the ruling of nullity is not given.

To the best of my knowledge, Christian sects that allow second marriages believe that a marriage can be an actual marriage and then terminate. Such sects aren’t claiming the first marriage never existed; they are claiming it was and then it was not. Even if the Catholic Church were to accept rulings of nullity from other Christian sects, those sects would first have to make a practice of granting such rulings.

Yes, it is true that Christians who enter the Catholic Church can confess their sins and enter the Church with a clean slate. This is true for those who married, divorced, and “remarried” if they turn away from their sin. **But the sacrament of Reconciliation cannot end that first marriage if it was valid. **If someone who wishes to enter the Church is in a second “marriage” then they are in an adulterous relationship.

When a Catholic seeks a ruling of nullity the Church must investigate and see if the putative marriage was null from the time of the exchange of vows. If the Church determines this was the case then the “marriage” was never valid so the parties to the putative marriage are free to enter a marriage. If the Church determines that the marriage is valid then it follows that any current civil marriage is invalid such that sexual relations in such a marriage would constitute adultery. If such adultery is confessed without the intention to refrain from continued adultery then it would naturally follow that sin would not be absolved.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Which Protestant churches do you have experience with? Because my experience has been totally different. My old pastor at my non-denominational church performed 2nd, 3rd, 4th weddings. My grandpa was married to a divorced woman in their United Pentecostal church (very conservative Pentecostals, the one where the women don’t cut their hair and only wear dresses). My husband’s aunt was divorced (from a Baptist PASTOR who had an affair, a despicable and terrible ordeal) and remarried. In the last case, she and her new husband were married at her house, but I’m pretty sure it was by a pastor, and they are still practicing Protestants (I think Baptists or non-denominational). My brother in law is currently dating/living with a divorced woman who was married in the Pentecostal church (I believe UPC as well). My in-laws (non denominational, FIL is the administrative pastor at church) are really pushing for them to get married. They have no qualms about her divorce.

Anyway, thinking of all the divorced/remarried people I know, I can’t think of any that were discouraged/turned away from remarrying in their Protestant churches.

Well, I guess you trump my experience! Mine is mainly Southern Baptist, mainstream Lutheran, and Presbyterian.

 

[JRKH]

JRKH, I am new to CAF and in RCIA. I was a Baptized as a child, attended church faithfully until my late teens, then married at age 19 to a young man who didn’t have any religious leanings. I didn’t even know if he was baptized. We were married in a Nazarene Church and married for 20 yrs. Long story short, divorced, and we both married other people (mine was many yrs later), About a year ago, I was moved to become a Catholic, thought this would be perfect since my husband was Catholic. Imagine the surprise when I learned what all had to be done, in regard to getting an annulment, etc.
I am currently in the process of this, but now my husband refuses to go through the annulment process, because “she would never agree to anything that would benefit me”. So here I am, absolutely in love with my new faith, but at times, having problems understanding all the rules… My realization is that I will never be able to be confirmed or receive Holy Communion or any Sacraments until this is resolved. I, too, thought that confessing my sins to God, was enough.
…Your discussion here has been most helpful…thank you,

Thank you…I t is indeed an ordeal but worth it. I wish you the very best of luck in this matter.

As to your husband’s circumstance - let him know that it really doesn’t matter what his ex thinks about the matter. In fact - My councilor told me that very few ex’s even bother to respond. In any event the issue isn’t whether she agrees or not but whether the marriage was valid to begin with.
So long as he answers honestly all is well - if she tries to “gum up the works” it would likely only strengthen his case…,

Peace
James