Converts – Annulments and Mortal Sin – need some help

[AnneTeresa]

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).

I’m not surprised someone jumped down my throat and I still stand by what I said. You carried it farther than it was intended by changing the sentence.

I still aim to lend support to people like Ruth. Only God knows what is in people’s hearts. I’m not into debating it here.

 

[AnneTeresa]

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).

It’s far more complicated than what you indicate here. Your changing my sentence took it much further than I intended. I stand by my post and I will continue to support people who are struggling with this issue.

I would like to see the church continue to look at this issue, as some others here have suggested.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I would like to see the church continue to look at this issue, as some others here have suggested.

That’s an interesting POV. In which way do you think the Church should change its teaching on this issue?

 

[Warrior1979]

Who rejects them

The Catholic Church

and what is the rejection based on?

The Catholic Church

Could you give some specific sources that show this “rejection” is standard procedure?

Show me where it is not. In how many cases has divorced and remarried non-Catholics entered the Church without convalidation.

 

[salusanimarum17]

…

Show me where it is not. In how many cases has divorced and remarried non-Catholics entered the Church without convalidation.

1. I can show you the Catechism and there’s nothing there. I could direct you to canon law and you’ll see nothing there. I can give you Vatican II documents and it won’t be there either. Ok, this is getting us nowhere.
2. Don’t ask me. I know nothing about it. You have come to certain conclusions and I’m wondering how you arrived at them.

 

[joanofarc2008]

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

It really is not. I know of couples that entered the Church with an agreement to remain as brother and sister indefinetly if the decree of nullity was not granted. The issue is that one cannot take Eucharist if they are in a state of mortal sin and once they are told, if they are having marital relations then they cannot take Eucharist which is the third Sacrament of Initiation and therefore cannot enter the Church. It is also more pastoral for a couple to know ahead of time if there promise to abstain from marital relations is a lifetime promise or a short term promise. In other words while there are those cases where a couple is willing to go ahead and abstain - most are not.

Also remember by the Precepts a couple is required to take Eucharist and Confession once a year. Therefore if a couple knowingly enters the Church and cannot do this then the Church would be setting them up for failure.

 

[anp1215]

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

haha, no “trumps”, just wondering what your experience was. I don’t know any Lutherans or Presbyterians, and the family I mentioned that is Baptist is Southern Baptist, but really, Southern Baptists are all over the map as far as “style.” There are some very small conservative traditional congregations and big contemporary mega churches. My husband’s family is more of the big contemporary type.

 

[JRKH]

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.

Warrior I’m afraid you might be getting confused about the point in all of this.
If an annulment is granted, then certainly there is no problem - none what-so-ever.
The Church does not reject “those vows”…

The point of my starting this thread was to try to better understand the why of requiring annulments for divorced and remarried people when they enter the Church.

Peace
James

 

[wanner47]

It’s far more complicated than what you indicate here. Your changing my sentence took it much further than I intended. I stand by my post and I will continue to support people who are struggling with this issue.

I would like to see the church continue to look at this issue, as some others here have suggested.

It’s actually not complicated, and my post demonstrated the logical conclusions of your beliefs. “Supporting” people, in this case, = condoning sinful acts.

I too think the Church should continue to look at this issue, as it seems to me that the vast majority of non-catholic marriages are invalid as they couples get very little in the way of religious-based marriage prep.

 

[ruth0903]

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

Thank you so much for your support…I agree with you 100%, but will still attempt to comply with the Church’s canon law. Please pray for me.

Thanks for the kind words, I was starting to feel very alone

 

[joanofarc2008]

For those going through the situation we do have a support group on here and would be happy to help you out - click on the link below in my signature block.

As far as anything else - this is one of those things that is sad but it is - unfortunately there are some Protestant denominations that are very sanguine about divorce and remarriage. I came from one. They also were celebrating gay marriages and doing a couple of other things including teaching sixth graders about contraception. I was one of those sixth graders. It is a wonder that I got to here from where I was. It still has my mother scratching her head.

That being said - how can someone with that kind of upbringing about the definition marriage possibly have validly consented to marriage under the definition of a Catholic marriage - just a thought. And know this is not why I got divorced - I was Catholic by the time I married - I am just throwing it out to chew on - it is a broad statement but I think it is something worth examining.

 

[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.

I appreciate your providing the link so I could look at the canon law myself. Most enlightening, though I did not “digest” the whole thing on marriage, I did find a couple of interesting things…

You posted above from Canon 1057. In 1055 it says this:
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

So - So long as a valid marriage is entered into it is a sacrament - I got that.
Now let’s look a bit further down:
Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.
Now - to me this indicates that ANY marriage between two protestants would not be valid in the Catholic Church due to the absence of the Ordinary or Pastor or one delegated by either of them…And if the marriage is not valid - it is not sacramental…And if it is not sacramental and not valid then does it, in the eyes of the Church exist???
The assumption seems to be that it does -

There does seem to be an exception to the requirement for the ordinary or priest above and it is found here
Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:
1/ in danger of death;
2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

This is obviously a very narrow exception and would not serve to validate marriages entered into by baptized persons without benefit of the ordinary, pastor or someone delegated by either of them.

Perhaps you could help fit these pieces together with what you have shared with me so far…

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.

Agreed - I also recall that in one of the Gospels there is a comment about “unchastity” being an exception according to both Matthews Gospel. So it appears that the statement above may not be “iron clad”.
I’m not trying to be nit-picky here, just accurate…

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post
Or am I still completely off on all of this…

Yes, but you are getting closer.

You are being most patient and I truly appreciate it.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

James

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

Yes - I do not intend to get off on other sacraments. I merely used them to try to help explain where I am coming from

I believe you might be concerned over the length of the annulment process.

Yes this is indeed a concern. But just as much, I am concerned about the problems associated with a possible denial of a decree of nullity and the hardship that could cause for people who truly wish to put their sinful past behind them (which might involve a bad marriage) and move forward in the light of God’s grace.

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.

Understood. I am a veteran of the process myself. Thankfully mine was relatively quick.

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 recognize 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 baptized 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.

Thanks for the explanation. Some things are beginning to sink in… but it takes time…and I’m not entirely sure that, even understanding, is going to make me any more comfortable with it…This relates back to my desire to see as many as possible come home to Holy Mother Church and for Holy Mother Church to open her great big arms and embrace them all and forgive their past sins without over complicating things.

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

Thanks Matt. I’m getting a lot of good help. I know it can be frustrating when you aren’t sure exactly what concerns me - just imagine what it’s like for me…
The advantage that comes from a thread like this is that I get different sorts of answers and they help me focus and respond and then the back and forth begins to narrow down the issues.
We take council with each other and - hopefully - everyone benefits.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by AnneTeresa View Post
I would like to see the church continue to look at this issue, as some others here have suggested.

I don’t wish to speak for AnneTeresa, but I don’t think it’s so much a matter of changing “teaching” as it might be possibly changing some practices. Understand I have nothing specific in mind in this but just want to clarify.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

For those going through the situation we do have a support group on here and would be happy to help you out - click on the link below in my signature block.

Joan - Thanks for mentioning this.

As far as anything else - this is one of those things that is sad but it is - unfortunately there are some Protestant denominations that are very sanguine about divorce and remarriage. I came from one. They also were celebrating gay marriages and doing a couple of other things including teaching sixth graders about contraception. I was one of those sixth graders. It is a wonder that I got to here from where I was. It still has my mother scratching her head.

That being said - how can someone with that kind of upbringing about the definition marriage possibly have validly consented to marriage under the definition of a Catholic marriage - just a thought. And know this is not why I got divorced - I was Catholic by the time I married - I am just throwing it out to chew on - it is a broad statement but I think it is something worth examining.

I think it is a valid observation.
Something else that I observed when looking at the canon law sections relating to marriage as a sacrament is that many protestant churches do not even think of marriage as a sacrament. Another element of “ignorance” that may or may not effect the “validity” of a protestant marriage…

Peace
James

 

[Vico]

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

The Catholic teaching is that the proper matrimonial covent between two validly baptised Christians is a sacrament, and a sacramental marriage cannot be broken. That is why the Catholic tribunal must determine if a marriage was valid or never properly formed (declaration of nullity) when seeking marriage, with a prior marriage.

 

[1ke]

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.
Now - to me this indicates that ANY marriage between two protestants would not be valid in the Catholic Church due to the absence of the Ordinary or Pastor or one delegated by either of them…And if the marriage is not valid - it is not sacramental…And if it is not sacramental and not valid then does it, in the eyes of the Church exist???
The assumption seems to be that it does -

No. Because other canons define who is bound by ecclesiastical laws:

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

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.*

You cannot read more into the canons that is there and you must know canon law as a whole to correctly apply them. I am not a canon lawyer, but I have read extensively on marriage and attended a class at our diocese for those assisting people with annulments.

This is obviously a very narrow exception and would not serve to validate marriages entered into by baptized persons without benefit of the ordinary, pastor or someone delegated by either of them.

This canon applies to Catholics, not non-Catholics.

Agreed - I also recall that in one of the Gospels there is a comment about “unchastity” being an exception according to both Matthews Gospel. So it appears that the statement above may not be “iron clad”.
I’m not trying to be nit-picky here, just accurate…

The Church is the authentic interpreter of scripture. The passage you are referring to is often misunderstood. It is referring to unlawful marriages (which supports the concept of nullity, BTW).

usccb.org/bible/matthew/5

 

[1ke]

This relates back to my desire to see as many as possible come home to Holy Mother Church and for Holy Mother Church to open her great big arms and embrace them all and forgive their past sins without over complicating things.

This can never be at the expense of the Truth.

The Church cannot change Christ’s Truth to make it easier to become Catholic. People must choose the narrow path on their own. Mt 10:34-39

usccb.org/bible/matthew/10

They might indeed have to choose between their sinful situation and the Church. The correct choice is the Church.

A person in a homosexual relationship will have to renounce that to join the Church. A polygamist (and there are many who come to the Church in Africa and other lands) has to renounce his other wives to join the Church (see Canon 1148), a person in an invalid marriage must renounce that. Those in invalid marriages are no different than people in other types of continued sinful situation. They cannot be received into the Church while the situation persists.

If the first marriage is found invalid, then they have avenues to pursue to a valid marriage. But, if the first marriage is found valid (and is not dissolvable via the Pauline or Petrine Privilege) then they must choose-- Christ and His Church or this sinful situation.

No, it is not easy.

 

[1ke]

Something else that I observed when looking at the canon law sections relating to marriage as a sacrament is that many protestant churches do not even think of marriage as a sacrament. Another element of “ignorance” that may or may not effect the “validity” of a protestant marriage…

Can.* 1099 Error concerning the unity or indissolubility or sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent provided that it does not determine the will.

 

[JRKH]

No. Because other canons define who is bound by ecclesiastical laws:

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

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.*

You cannot read more into the canons that is there and you must know canon law as a whole to correctly apply them. I am not a canon lawyer, but I have read extensively on marriage and attended a class at our diocese for those assisting people with annulments.

Neither am I a canon Lawyer and I have only so much tolerance for trying to read this kind of material…I have to take things in small bites if you know what I mean.

It’s pretty obvious to me that you know what you are talking about and I don’t so don’t please don’t read into my comments or references any sort of “pride” or “gotcha” mentality - Just observations.

God Bless you for your work in helping people sort through these matters in seeking annulments.

If I may ask a couple of questions regarding your work…

1. How much training is required for what you do?
2. In your experience what are the odds that the tribunal will deny a decree of nullity where the marriage was purely protestant and the decree is being sought in order to enter the Church?

You may not wish to answer the last question publicly and yet I am still curious, so if you wish to whisper the answer in my PM ear, that would be fine too.

Peace
James