Converts – Annulments and Mortal Sin – need some help

[JRKH]

This can never be at the expense of the Truth.

I would never promote anything else…

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.

I agree on this.
I must admit that it was a frightening situation when I was going through the process myself…What to do we were denied. In a sense, for our particular case, the problem was removed by my wife’s illness, which shortly after the decree was granted, precluded any “marital relations”. But I know that for many this can be a very difficult and frightening issue.

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.

Yes - this does make sense.

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.

Agreed - none of this is easy.
Yet you know something - If I did not feel troubled by some of this, I think I would worry about my own Agape.
I desire that all be able to come home. Not to compromise truth you understand but to allow as many as are able to come to the Lord fully and joyfully…
To me, my feelings and desires on this matter stem from that second Great commandment in Mt 22:36-40.

Anyway - I continue to thank God for the Church and for folks like you.

Peace
James

 

[joanofarc2008]

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.

I wonder though - could a case like this where the marriage has obviously broken down and one partner has left be made that it may have determined the will if that party knew it were Sacramental in nature and that they may not be able to marry a second time?

 

[JRKH]

To ALL who have responded and tried to help me on this. THANK YOU…

I have a lot to consider, and to pray on.
Even though my understanding in this is not perfect (my limitation) and I still “wonder” about this and that, I am once again reassured that the Church’s position and practices are well grounded and are certainly worthy of my ascent and submission.

Praise God for the Church
Praise God for the Good people here at CAF

Tomorrow is thanksgiving in the U.S…
May everyone have a wonderful, safe and blessed Thanksgiving day…

Peace
James

 

[1ke]

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.

No, I didn’t at all. I was merely trying to set the context that sometimes you read a canon and think you know what it means, but it is using technical (legal) language and therefore you (me) really don’t! There is an entire book (and it is a big one) called the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law which is like many of our civil legal books in that it gives explanations and cites “case law” in the sense of how the Apostolic Signatura has ruled or clarifications that have come from various Congregations at the Curia.

1. How much training is required for what you do?

I just went through a short training with the Judicial Vicar as part of my RCIA director training. Enough to know what I’m talking about, so to speak, and direct them to the correct party. Those who act as advocates are trained extensively. I have not been through that training.

I kinda wanted to be a lawyer at one time, maybe I should have been! I picked MBA school over law school b/c I couldn’t do law school at night while working full time. ha!

1. 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?

The person must have grounds for a decree of nullity petition to be accepted by the Tribunal. What you describe is not grounds for nullity.

Grounds for nullity are enumerated in canon law (well derived from it b/c requirements for valid marriage are enumerated in canon law and therefore nullity is based on the absence of or defect in those requirements). They include the existence of an impediment or a defect in consent or intent. The same grounds apply to all, Catholic and non Catholic alike (excepting “merely ecclesial law” which applies only to Catholics and those marrying them).

 

[JRKH]

No, I didn’t at all. I was merely trying to set the context that sometimes you read a canon and think you know what it means, but it is using technical (legal) language and therefore you (me) really don’t! There is an entire book (and it is a big one) called the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law which is like many of our civil legal books in that it gives explanations and cites “case law” in the sense of how the Apostolic Signatura has ruled or clarifications that have come from various Congregations at the Curia.

:thumbsup:

I love this…The part about having a book (a really big one) to explain the explanations so to speak.
Sort of touches on something I use when talking with people about how many “rules” the Church has…I call it the “Yea but what if” factor. No matter how carefully one tries to explain something, someone will always come up with a “yea - but what if…” This leads to many pages of explanation, clarification and then commentary on whatever issue is under discussion. You’ve seen quite a bit of it right here in this thread from me…

I just went through a short training with the Judicial Vicar as part of my RCIA director training. Enough to know what I’m talking about, so to speak, and direct them to the correct party. Those who act as advocates are trained extensively. I have not been through that training.

I kinda wanted to be a lawyer at one time, maybe I should have been! I picked MBA school over law school b/c I couldn’t do law school at night while working full time. ha!

Thanks for the info on the training. Someday I think I might like to become more involved in things like RCIA - for course for now I have my hands full.

As to wanting to be a lawyer…That thought had crossed my mind once upon a time and my mother even broached it to me as a possibility when I was in high school. Truthfully I don’t think I would have had the stamina for Law School then.

Later I found myself in the Quality Assurance field and there is a fair amount of “technical” reading involved there so I’ve developed a bit of understanding about reading “what’s written” without reading “into” the text too much.
So I think you and I probably have a good and mutual understanding of how this works.

The person must have grounds for a decree of nullity petition to be accepted by the Tribunal. What you describe is not grounds for nullity.

Grounds for nullity are enumerated in canon law (well derived from it b/c requirements for valid marriage are enumerated in canon law and therefore nullity is based on the absence of or defect in those requirements). They include the existence of an impediment or a defect in consent or intent. The same grounds apply to all, Catholic and non Catholic alike (excepting “merely ecclesial law” which applies only to Catholics and those marrying them).
I guess to understand further on some of this I would have to study more deeply so as to determine what aspects are “mere ecclesial law” and what is not.

Peace
James

 

[1ke]

JRKH,

I highly recommend the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster.

I think it would really help you in this matter.

 

[Warrior1979]

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”…

It is my understanding that a divorced and remarried non-Catholic couple that receives an annulment(s) must have a convalidation (provided they wish to be considered married in the Catholic Church). By default, the “remarriage” vows, would be rejected. I would assume they could be accepted if a radical convalidation was sought and granted.

I can’t find the Church reference, though I have found references from an Apologist that I respect and is very knowledgeable about marital irregularities for those entering the Church.

 

[joanofarc2008]

It is my understanding that a divorced and remarried non-Catholic couple that receives an annulment(s) must have a convalidation (provided they wish to be considered married in the Catholic Church). By default, the “remarriage” vows, would be rejected. I would assume they could be accepted if a radical convalidation was sought and granted.

I can’t find the Church reference, though I have found references from an Apologist that I respect and is very knowledgeable about marital irregularities for those entering the Church.

They wouldn’t be eligible for a radical sanitation until the decree of nullity was granted because there was an impediment at the time of the marriage. Unless one member of the couple was against going through the convalidation then it would most likely be better to do the convalidation as radical sanitation does take longer.

 

[JRKH]

It is my understanding that a divorced and remarried non-Catholic couple that receives an annulment(s) must have a convalidation (provided they wish to be considered married in the Catholic Church). By default, the “remarriage” vows, would be rejected. I would assume they could be accepted if a radical convalidation was sought and granted.

I can’t find the Church reference, though I have found references from an Apologist that I respect and is very knowledgeable about marital irregularities for those entering the Church.

Ah - Thanks for clarifying. It was the reference to convalidation that I was missing.

I’m not sure on the particulars in this regard, perhaps someone else can explain.

Peace
James

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Ah - Thanks for clarifying. It was the reference to convalidation that I was missing.

I’m not sure on the particulars in this regard, perhaps someone else can explain.

Peace
James

If they receive an annulment and become free to marry convalidation is when the couple renew their consent to each other. The Church will only consider the couple married from the date of their convalidation.

They first need an annulment. They must not be given a vetitum. There must be no other impediments to them being married.

A vetitum is a prohibition placed on one of the parties prohibiting them from marriage. It’s usually temporary and imposed until the Church is satisfied the person has a good understanding of marriage.