Converts – Annulments and Mortal Sin – need some help

[JRKH]

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?

No - I’m asking why a person cannot come to God, in His Church, with an entirely clean slate…Why - this ONE thing (so far as I can tell) is an impediment that can take months - even years to resolve.

We want people to come to the Church.
We want to embrace them and share the fullness of Truth.
We beseech them to “come as you are”. Leave all your sin, your doubts, your concerns behind, but then…

• • WHOA - OOPS - - you have some marriage irregularity - nope can’t bring you into full communion until this is resolved…might take months or even years to resolve - - doesn’t matter the circumstances, the background, what you were told by your other church or pastor or whatever…it’s gotta be examined…and until it’s resolved you gotta wait…

Anything else?? - No problem - - - just go to confession receive absolution and move forward in God’s Love…

It just seems to me that with these people who seek to come home to the Church, we should let bygones be bygones and move forward. At least come up with something that is quicker and easier for those seeking to convert (not revert) than the current annulment system.

I’m getting frustrated - I need to get to bed…

Peace
James

 

[ruth0903]

JRKH- Thanks for your thoughts, I pray about this daily, for grace, understanding and patience. It is interesting to me all the different posts. Sometimes, I just have to step away…it becomes too much.

 

[SMHW]

No - I’m asking why a person cannot come to God, in His Church, with an entirely clean slate…Why - this ONE thing (so far as I can tell) is an impediment that can take months - even years to resolve.

I guess I am confused as to why you seem to think that the Church has the power to forgive adultery when there is no intention to reform.

If the Church knows that someone is in a state of (objective) mortal sin and intends to keep engaging in that sin then the Church will presumably not admit that person into full communion with the Church. What makes invalid marriages somewhat unique is that they are *public *sinful situations.

Presumably an unrepentant bank robber would not be granted absolution in confession. But it is unlikely that an un-imprisoned publicly known bank robber is going to be seeking entrance into the Catholic Church so there is not really an opportunity for the Church to deny/delay admission into full communion.

 

[JRKH]

I guess I am confused as to why you seem to think that the Church has the power to forgive adultery when there is no intention to reform.

Good answer -

Perhaps part of the problem is that I see the Church holding these people to the same standard expected of a fully Catholic marriage (In the Church, proper preparation etc.) when in fact, we have NO idea, in many cases, of the particulars of the “marriage” in some other church.
So - While the Church accepts protestant standards for “marriage” (until proven otherwise) without knowing the particulars of proper preparation, intents and so forth, the Church will NOT accept protestant “annulment” (not a proper term, but bear with me here).

A couple gets married in a Protestant Church. All is good. Later they get divorced and this protestant Church, as a matter of form, accepts civil divorce as valid, so as far as they are concerned the previous marriage never existed. The woman remarries in her protestant Church…thus proving by act that this church accepts that the previous marriage was invalid. In this case, neither the church, the pastor or the couple believe that they are in an adulterous relationship.

Now this woman AND perhaps her husband, seek to convert to the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church says - wait a minute…
Your previous church has the right and authority to marry in whatever way and by whatever standard form they might wish to apply and we will accept that, but not the right and authority to annul said marriage by whatever standard and form they wish to apply.

The people involved do not feel that they - in their current circumstance - are in an adulterous situation, and how they arrived at this situation occurred outside of the full understandings that we hold in the Church.
It just seems odd to try to hold them to the same standard as would be expected of a “Cradle Catholic” raised and married in the Church (as I was)

Now the situation above is a very “clean” one with no “church hopping”, something not uncommon in the protestant world. Combine this practice of “Church hopping” with the depth and requirements presented in the annulment process and one has a recipe for much difficulty and delay. Imagine trying to track down witnesses, friends, etc who knew you before during and after the marriage.

I do ramble a bit don’t I… I guess that - in summary -
I feel a frustration for those who wish to enter the Church - becoming full fledged and devout Catholics and leave behind ALL of their past life outside of full communion with the Church.
I wish that the Church had a different, more streamlined set of rules that would allow these matters to be addressed in an expeditious manner of weeks rather than months so that such people are not held in limbo.
I feel bad because I know how “jammed up” the Tribunal process is in this country today and undoubtedly this requirement of the Church is part of the problem.

I just wish the Church would say that - when you come home and enter the Church, on that day - All before is moot. You are a new Creature, a new man/woman and we begin today as your new birthday - the day of your rebirth -
Then, because they are “reborn” they were never married before… and their current marriage is blessed by a quick renewal of vows and they move forward…

Thank you for your patience with me…

Peace
James

 

[Matthew_Holford]

So - While the Church accepts protestant standards for “marriage” …

Could this be the basis of your difficulty in understanding this issue?

If two Protestants get married they are married. This is where you could say: ‘the Church accepts protestant standards for “marriage”.’ In other words, the Catholic Church recognizes Protestant marriages as valid providing they conform to Divine Law. If a Protestant church were to permit, for example, same sex marriages, the Catholic Church would not recognize these because they would be contrary to Divine Law.

If two Protestants get married and at a later time get divorced but do not remarry the Catholic Church would not take issue.

If two Protestants get married and at a later time get divorced and one or both of them subsequently re-marry in a Protestant church you cannot say: ‘the Church accepts protestant standards for “marriage”.’

The Church teaches that a marriage cannot be simply dissolved in this way. To this extent the Church considers everyone bound by Divine Law. This applies to all Christians, all non-Christians, and all non-believers. It would only become an issue in practical terms if such a person wanted to enter the Church.

How can you accept a person into the Catholic Church if they are not in concert with the teachings of the Church? The Church teaches that you cannot marry and then have a civil divorce and then re-marry. The second marriage, the Church teaches, is an adulterous relationship. You have to accept that to come into the Church.

 

[Leegal]

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

I had a feeling that you were speaking for someone else. No details are necessary, but you can see how the thread takes a different turn, depending on the the amount of information given. Which is why I neglected to get into any discussion of venial and mortal sin. I saw no sin then; don’t see it now in divorce and remarriage as a Protestant would see it.

Anyway, it’s opinion only. I don’t even know whether they have the proper grounds to get Church annullments. I do know the non-Catholic, non-converting spouse would also have to seek one, if available.

 

[ruth0903]

Good answer -

Perhaps part of the problem is that I see the Church holding these people to the same standard expected of a fully Catholic marriage (In the Church, proper preparation etc.) when in fact, we have NO idea, in many cases, of the particulars of the “marriage” in some other church.
So - While the Church accepts protestant standards for “marriage” (until proven otherwise) without knowing the particulars of proper preparation, intents and so forth, the Church will NOT accept protestant “annulment” (not a proper term, but bear with me here).

A couple gets married in a Protestant Church. All is good. Later they get divorced and this protestant Church, as a matter of form, accepts civil divorce as valid, so as far as they are concerned the previous marriage never existed. The woman remarries in her protestant Church…thus proving by act that this church accepts that the previous marriage was invalid. In this case, neither the church, the pastor or the couple believe that they are in an adulterous relationship.

Now this woman AND perhaps her husband, seek to convert to the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church says - wait a minute…
Your previous church has the right and authority to marry in whatever way and by whatever standard form they might wish to apply and we will accept that, but not the right and authority to annul said marriage by whatever standard and form they wish to apply.

The people involved do not feel that they - in their current circumstance - are in an adulterous situation, and how they arrived at this situation occurred outside of the full understandings that we hold in the Church.
It just seems odd to try to hold them to the same standard as would be expected of a “Cradle Catholic” raised and married in the Church (as I was)

Now the situation above is a very “clean” one with no “church hopping”, something not uncommon in the protestant world. Combine this practice of “Church hopping” with the depth and requirements presented in the annulment process and one has a recipe for much difficulty and delay. Imagine trying to track down witnesses, friends, etc who knew you before during and after the marriage.

I do ramble a bit don’t I… I guess that - in summary -
I feel a frustration for those who wish to enter the Church - becoming full fledged and devout Catholics and leave behind ALL of their past life outside of full communion with the Church.
I wish that the Church had a different, more streamlined set of rules that would allow these matters to be addressed in an expeditious manner of weeks rather than months so that such people are not held in limbo.
I feel bad because I know how “jammed up” the Tribunal process is in this country today and undoubtedly this requirement of the Church is part of the problem.

I just wish the Church would say that - when you come home and enter the Church, on that day - All before is moot. You are a new Creature, a new man/woman and we begin today as your new birthday - the day of your rebirth -
Then, because they are “reborn” they were never married before… and their current marriage is blessed by a quick renewal of vows and they move forward…

Thank you for your patience with me…

Peace
James

James, your reply is “right on” with me. I read the postings of some of the others, and shudder…is this how my fellow parishoners see me? Are they being genuine with their continual, non-judgemental words of support in my journey to comply? Before I started in RCIA, I went to see a priest from a different parish, who I was told was more “liberal” and spoke with him about this. He told me that he felt the church really shouldn’t be judging other religions recognition of marriages, he felt the process was antiquated and in need of revision. But that the process is unlikely to change. I know this will enrage some people, but, this is what happened.

I just want to worship my God, be allowed to become a member in full communion with the church, and remain married to my husband of 14 yrs, who is the kindest, most generous and loving person I have ever know.

Peace to all,
Ruth

 

[Warrior1979]

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.

This is where I get lost. If they seek to join the Catholic Church, and go through the annulment process, and subsequently receive the annulment(s), they were in fact not married to their first “spouse.” Thus they were, in fact, free to marry. Yet those vows are rejected by the Catholic Church.

 

[JRKH]

Could this be the basis of your difficulty in understanding this issue?

If two Protestants get married they are married. This is where you could say: ‘the Church accepts protestant standards for “marriage”.’ In other words, the Catholic Church recognizes Protestant marriages as valid providing they conform to Divine Law. If a Protestant church were to permit, for example, same sex marriages, the Catholic Church would not recognize these because they would be contrary to Divine Law.

If two Protestants get married and at a later time get divorced but do not remarry the Catholic Church would not take issue.

If two Protestants get married and at a later time get divorced and one or both of them subsequently re-marry in a Protestant church you cannot say: ‘the Church accepts protestant standards for “marriage”.’

The Church teaches that a marriage cannot be simply dissolved in this way. To this extent the Church considers everyone bound by Divine Law. This applies to all Christians, all non-Christians, and all non-believers. It would only become an issue in practical terms if such a person wanted to enter the Church.

How can you accept a person into the Catholic Church if they are not in concert with the teachings of the Church? The Church teaches that you cannot marry and then have a civil divorce and then re-marry. The second marriage, the Church teaches, is an adulterous relationship. You have to accept that to come into the Church.

Great POST -
I appreciate many of the things brought out. Your speaking of the “Divine Law” is most helpful…

In relation to the bolded: I have no problem with requiring that one entering the Church be in “full concert” with the teachings of the Church.
But - should these people be held to a “full concert” standard for things that occurred when they were NOT in full concert with the Church. I would say that most any other issue, sin or whatever that could come up can be handled quickly and in a private pastoral manner. I know of no other impediment to entering the Church that requires the kind of investigation that marriage does.

Touching back on the “Divine Law” aspect which, as I said is most helpful.
It made me think of how we view the “sacramental” life - and how - in certain cases a sacrament can be valid without a priest, while in other cases the Church holds that a priest is required.
Baptism does not require a priest. The Church will accept a baptism of proper form AND if evidence can be shown that it did indeed occur. If there is ANY question or concern…the simple solution is to re-baptize…
The Lords Supper is another matter. The Church refuses to accept that any protestant church has a valid Eucharist because they do not have valid Holy Orders…So - While others churches might have liturgical ministers (and some of these are even referred to as priests), the Church denies that their Eucharist, their Lords supper, is Sacramentally valid.

Now in the Church, marriage is a Sacrament that requires the presence of a Priest. So why does the Church accept protestant marriages as Sacramentally valid (Correct to divine law) when they are defacto entered into with a defect of form (Not in a Catholic Church and without the presence of a priest)?

Thus, when a person comes to faith in the Catholic Church, accepts the teachings of the Church etc, and comes forward to enter the Church and have their marriage blessed, there would be no problem since any previous marriage would not have been sacramentally valid…

Or am I still completely off on all of this…:hypno:

Peace
James

 

[1ke]

Now in the Church, marriage is a Sacrament that requires the presence of a Priest. So why does the Church accept protestant marriages as Sacramentally valid (Correct to divine law) when they are defacto entered into with a defect of form (Not in a Catholic Church and without the presence of a priest)?

This isn’t correct.

It is the consent of the couple that makes the marriage. Not the presence of the priest.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
*
The priest is the witness of the Church. However, a priest is not the only person who can witness a marriage. A deacon can witness a marriage, and a lay person can also do so in the absence of a priest.

Can. 1112 §1. Where there is a lack of priests and deacons, the diocesan bishop can delegate lay persons to assist at marriages, with the previous favorable vote of the conference of bishops and after he has obtained the permission of the Holy See.
*

And the requirement to have the marriage witnessed by a priest, deacon, or delegated lay person only applies when at least one party is Catholic:

Can.* 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

If neither party is Catholic, then marriage is still governed by Divine Law. And Christ gave us that law:

One who leaves his spouse and marries another commits adultery.

Or am I still completely off on all of this…:hypno:

Yes, but you are getting closer.

 

[JRKH]

James, your reply is “right on” with me. I read the postings of some of the others, and shudder…is this how my fellow parishoners see me? Are they being genuine with their continual, non-judgemental words of support in my journey to comply? Before I started in RCIA, I went to see a priest from a different parish, who I was told was more “liberal” and spoke with him about this. He told me that he felt the church really shouldn’t be judging other religions recognition of marriages, he felt the process was antiquated and in need of revision. But that the process is unlikely to change. I know this will enrage some people, but, this is what happened.

I just want to worship my God, be allowed to become a member in full communion with the church, and remain married to my husband of 14 yrs, who is the kindest, most generous and loving person I have ever know.

Peace to all,
Ruth

Thank you for your kind words Ruth.

It’s important to remember that, even though we are having some interesting discussion here, we must always support the Teaching of the Church as correct. This I do. Though I really don’t understand it, or parts of it.

AND perhaps I feel that some of the procedures etc could bear looking at for possible revision.

peace
James

 

[JRKH]

This isn’t correct.

It is the consent of the couple that makes the marriage. Not the presence of the priest.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
*
The priest is the witness of the Church. However, a priest is not the only person who can witness a marriage. A deacon can witness a marriage, and a lay person can also do so in the absence of a priest.

Can. 1112 §1. Where there is a lack of priests and deacons, the diocesan bishop can delegate lay persons to assist at marriages, with the previous favorable vote of the conference of bishops and after he has obtained the permission of the Holy See.
*

And the requirement to have the marriage witnessed by a priest, deacon, or delegated lay person only applies when at least one party is Catholic:

Can.* 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

If neither party is Catholic, then marriage is still governed by Divine Law. And Christ gave us that law:

One who leaves his spouse and marries another commits adultery.

Yes, but you are getting closer.

Thanks for the clarifications…I’ll need to take some time later to read through them more carefully.

Could you provide a link to where you git these from??

Peace
James

 

[1ke]

Thanks for the clarifications…I’ll need to take some time later to read through them more carefully.

Could you provide a link to where you git these from??

Peace
James

Canon Law:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

scroll to the section on Sacraments. there are numerous canons on marriage.

 

[salusanimarum17]

This is where I get lost. If they seek to join the Catholic Church, and go through the annulment process, and subsequently receive the annulment(s), they were in fact not married to their first “spouse.” Thus they were, in fact, free to marry. Yet those vows are rejected by the Catholic Church.

Who rejects them and what is the rejection based on? Could you give some specific sources that show this “rejection” is standard procedure?

 

[SMHW]

Thanks for the clarifications…I’ll need to take some time later to read through them more carefully.

Could you provide a link to where you git these from??

Peace
James

I think 1ke has directed you to useful information.

The point is that the fundamental requirements for valid marriages existed long before the Church existed. The fundamental requirements for sacramental marriage more or less are the same “age” as the Church. The Church does not impose these fundamental requirements; the Church merely enforces these requirements.

Now the Church does “impose” requirements on the “form” of marriages for those that are members of the Catholic Church (and for those who are not members but wish to marry members.) Those requirements include such things as location and who can witness the marriage. (Yeah, yeah, Eastern and Western Christians differ on whether this is a matter of fundamentals or form but since “protestants” are pretty much Western Christians we will go with Western thinking.)

**But the Church teaching that sacramental marriage is for life is not a *Church imposed requirement. It is a divine law *requirement that the Church enforces. ** Now the Church can only enforce divine law if she has *practical *authority. She has no practical authority over non-Catholics until such time as those non-Catholics wish to join the Church. But from God’s perspective those divine requirements still apply even if the non-Catholic is unaware of them.

On another note: You mentioned in some post that non-Catholic Christian Churches evidently share the Catholic understanding that some putative marriages were evidently null and thus marriage at a later time is possible. I do not think this is the usual thinking. I think most non-Catholic Christian Churches believe that marriage can be valid and then end. Most of them believe adultery is grounds for divorce and re-marriage but I don’t think they believe that the first marriage was null.

 

[AnneTeresa]

This whole discussion is a good example of why there is still much controversy over this issue among bishops (and priests) and it needs to continue to be explored. My heart goes out to people like Ruth. For me, I choose to trust in Jesus and his forgiveness and compassion.

 

[AnneTeresa]

In my book, Jesus’ forgiveness trumps canon law. I feel for you Ruth and others in your situation.

 

[Warrior1979]

One who leaves his spouse and marries another commits adultery.

Even if the parties are Protestant and the Church later confirms that the first marriage was invalid?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Touching back on the “Divine Law” aspect which, as I said is most helpful.
It made me think of how we view the “sacramental” life - and how - in certain cases a sacrament can be valid without a priest, while in other cases the Church holds that a priest is required.
Baptism does not require a priest. The Church will accept a baptism of proper form AND if evidence can be shown that it did indeed occur. If there is ANY question or concern…the simple solution is to re-baptize…
The Lords Supper is another matter. The Church refuses to accept that any protestant church has a valid Eucharist because they do not have valid Holy Orders…So - While others churches might have liturgical ministers (and some of these are even referred to as priests), the Church denies that their Eucharist, their Lords supper, is Sacramentally valid.

Now in the Church, marriage is a Sacrament that requires the presence of a Priest. So why does the Church accept protestant marriages as Sacramentally valid (Correct to divine law) when they are defacto entered into with a defect of form (Not in a Catholic Church and without the presence of a priest)?

Thus, when a person comes to faith in the Catholic Church, accepts the teachings of the Church etc, and comes forward to enter the Church and have their marriage blessed, there would be no problem since any previous marriage would not have been sacramentally valid…

Peace
James

James

Shall we stick to discussing the one sacrament: marriage? It might just make things easier.

I believe you might be concerned over the length of the annulment process. That really is just a matter of practicalities. If the tribunal could deal with a single case and everyone responded to the tribunal’s requests for documents and information expeditiously these time delays wouldn’t occur. They happen because of many factors: number of cases, shortage of staff, people not responding to the tribunal quickly. The judges also need to collate sufficient evidence to be morally certain of their decision.

Now should people be held responsible for their actions as non-Catholics? The answer to that isn’t a straightforward yes or no. It depends on the actions in question. If John and Mary are both Protestants and let’s say marry in the Church of England, the Church has no concern that they’ve not married according to canonical form. They’re not Catholics so are not bound by merely ecclesiastical laws. If after a number of years John and Mary divorce and then John marries Suzanne. The Church would hold them responsible for their actions. This is Divine Law. That applies to all.

I would also like to explain for you some aspects of marriage. The Church teaches that everyone should marry according to the laws to which they’re bound. For example, it would expect me to marry in accordance with English law. If a couple have a religious marriage ceremony they should follow their religion’s laws. The Church only disagrees with civil or religious laws if they’re contrary to Divine Law. My government is currently considering allowing same sex couples to marry. If that happens the Catholic Church won’t recognise them because that is contrary to Natural Divine Law. Whenever a couple marry the Church considers it a good and natural marriage – if it is not contrary to Divine Law.
If two people get married and they’re both baptised Christians their marriage is also a sacrament. As soon as they’re married it’s a ratified and sacramental marriage. If they consummate it, it becomes a consummated, ratified, and sacramental marriage. It cannot be dissolved by any human power. That’s something to which the Catholic Church holds even non-Catholics.

Another aspect of Catholic marriage is canonical form. Canonical form is ecclesiastical law. It was initially introduced by the Council of Trent as an attempt to prevent clandestine marriages. Catholics are bound by ecclesiastical law. For the most part non-Catholics aren’t so bound. There are exceptions. An example of this would be a non-Catholic marrying a Catholic. The non-Catholic would be bound by canonical form if marrying a Catholic unless a dispensation from canonical form is granted. In the Latin Catholic Church the ministers of the sacrament are the bride and bridegroom not the priest. They administer the sacrament to each other. The Church also requires the marriage to be witnessed by three witnesses. One of the witnesses is appointed by the Church. In effect he or she is the Church’s delegate. This delegate is normally a priest. It may be a bishop or deacon. In some places lay people are appointed as the Church’s delegate. This delegate, sacred minister or lay person, must be officially appointed by the Church. The other two witnesses are preferably Catholics but don’t need to be.

I hope I’ve addressed your concerns about the length of time an annulment takes. Likewise, I hope it’s clearer for you concerning marriage according to the Catholic Church.

Or am I still completely off on all of this…

You’re getting there although I still don’t think you’re too sure about what it is that actually concerns you but I could easily be wrong about this.

Matt

 

[wanner47]

In my book, Jesus’ forgiveness trumps canon law. I feel for you Ruth and others in your situation.

Your comment is nonsensical in the context of the discussion. For example, what if you said the following:
*
In my book, Jesus’ forgiveness trumps civil law.*

You’d essentially be arguing that no one who ever broke civil law should have to face the consequences of doing so as long as they were forgiven by Jesus. That means that murderers, rapists, etc. would only need to ask for Jesus’ forgiveness to avoid any civil consequences (jail times, victim restitution, etc.).

Jesus gave the Church the power to bind and loose. Canon Law is one aspect of that binding and loosing authority. Assuming sincere repentance, we are forgiven of our sins by Christ, yes, but His forgiveness does not remove the temporal consequences of our sins, only the eternal ones. Jesus tells us to “go and sin no more” - meaning that once you are aware of your sin (in this case, fornication), and have confessed it and received forgiveness from Him, we are not to go out and continue fornication (i.e., having sex with someone to whom we are not married in the eyes of the Church, to whom He has given authority to determine such matters).