Dating a divorced Catholic (who was civilly married)

[TwoNames]

In other words, treat it as something that affects him and his future without presuming that such future must necessarily include you. And if it turns out that he doesn’t care about being able to marry in the Church, that is an answer also.

PERFECTION

 

[Gorgias]

Are you saying that, in some countries, lack of form verifications do not ever see a tribunal, but are rather done solely at the parish level, as a mere administrative matter?

Yes. Canada, for one, if memory serves.

 

[Ana_v]

That kind of behavior doesn’t sound compatible with someone who wants to sincerely live as a Catholic.

He hasn’t represented himself as a Catholic to me. He is a theist, but non-religious. The way I learned he has a Catholic past is that I overheard him having a conversation about religion with a Buddhist woman, who happened to be a former Catholic. They were disagreeing about the nature of God, and it was in that discussion that I heard him mention to her that that he too had been raised Catholic.

I was sitting nearby them so that’s why I heard their discussion.

It was later that day that he introduced himself and we started talking (we were guests at the same travelers’ hostel) . The things I know about his divorce are from a conversation I had with him directly when we were on the topic about men, women, and relationships.

 

[Gorgias]

The things I know about his divorce are from a conversation I had with him directly when we were on the topic about men, women, and relationships.

The only thing that sets alarm bells off for me is his cavalier attitude towards marriage. After all, he was willing to enter into a marital relationship – with all that this brings to the table – fully intending to walk away, and merely use marriage as a means to some other end. That doesn’t sound like someone who values the Christian notion of marriage. (YMMV.)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Are you saying that, in some countries, lack of form verifications do not ever see a tribunal, but are rather done solely at the parish level, as a mere administrative matter?

Yes. Canada, for one, if memory serves.

Then why in the world don’t we do that here? Aren’t the tribunals overworked enough as it is?

Two or three generations that don’t really comprehend marriage as a sacrament, the tribunals have a lot of sorting-out and clean-up work to do. I don’t often find myself agreeing with the more “progressive” things Pope Francis says, but when he speculated that many (and possibly most) contemporary marriages are invalid, I agreed wholeheartedly, and still do.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/most-marriages-today-are-invalid-pope-francis-suggests-51752

He got into trouble using the word “most”, and I can well relate — I’ve gotten some blowback myself using that word, to the effect of “you can’t know unless you interview everybody”. There is such a thing as polls, people, and pollsters and statisticians are not idiots.

 

[tuffsmurf]

You don’t really need to understand marriage as a sacrament for it to be vaild, though.
Hindus, muslims, jews and mormons all can and do enter into valid marriages, even though divorce is permitted in their religion (albeit discourages).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

You don’t really need to understand marriage as a sacrament for it to be willing, though.
Hindus, muslims, jews and mormons all can and do enter into valid marriages, even though divorce is permitted in their religion (albeit discourages).

Their marriages are not sacramental, though, they are only natural marriages. Natural marriage predates Christianity and even religion itself. I think we can rightly speak of Adam and Eve as having been married.

I think of LDS (Mormonism) as being a “Christian-derived” religion, rather than Christian per se. None of their sacraments are valid. Their understanding of the Trinity and their Christology is totally different from that of orthodox Christianity.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Two or three generations that don’t really comprehend marriage as a sacrament, the tribunals have a lot of sorting-out and clean-up work to do. I don’t often find myself agreeing with the more “progressive” things Pope Francis says, but when he speculated that many (and possibly most) contemporary marriages are invalid, I agreed wholeheartedly, and still do.

In my relatively brief canonical career, I have been assigned to (and/or read) somewhere close to 1,000 nullity cases and can count on one hand the number of times where it looked like (not to mention, was proven) a Party had a nullifying error or intention against the sacramental nature of his/her marriage. It just doesn’t happen.

Dan

 

[acanonlawyer]

Then why in the world don’t we do that here?

I suspect that bishops want to have a uniform “process” throughout the diocese and the person at the diocesan level would be expected to have a little more competence/confidence in doing what needs to be done. There is also the chance that a civil union would have been “convalidated” (via sanation), which the diocesan person could check out.

Aren’t the tribunals overworked enough as it is?

Interesting question. I imagine that it varies from place to place and even from person to person within a given tribunal.

Dan

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Two or three generations that don’t really comprehend marriage as a sacrament, the tribunals have a lot of sorting-out and clean-up work to do. I don’t often find myself agreeing with the more “progressive” things Pope Francis says, but when he speculated that many (and possibly most) contemporary marriages are invalid, I agreed wholeheartedly, and still do.

In my relatively brief canonical career, I have been assigned to (and/or read) somewhere close to 1,000 nullity cases and can count on one hand the number of times where it looked like (not to mention, was proven) a Party had a nullifying error or intention against the sacramental nature of his/her marriage. It just doesn’t happen.

Then perhaps that aspect should be looked into a little more fully. I think there is a place within the nullity process for a faciliator to ask “did you really understand the total meaning of what you were doing?”, then go over “this”, and “this”, and “this”, and manage to tease it out of them “you really didn’t grasp what marriage is, did you?”. That might sound more like something Dr Phil or Dr Laura would ask, but add to that, it cuts right to the chase.

There is also the chance that a civil union would have been “convalidated” (via sanation), which the diocesan person could check out.

You are quite right. I didn’t think of that aspect of it.

 

[Gorgias]

Then why in the world don’t we do that here? Aren’t the tribunals overworked enough as it is?

I’m glad we do it here. To be honest, it’s important enough that it seems irresponsible to entrust it to the average priest in a parish, who has maybe two semesters of work in canon law, and is overworked enough that it’s quite likely that he’d just fluff through it or delegate it to someone who has even less canon law knowledge!

(On the face of it, it sure seems easy enough, no? “Are you baptized Catholic? Did you attempt a valid wedding?” The problem is, it’s not just that cut-and-dried. There are often multiple weddings in a person’s life history, and the question isn’t just “is this one a ‘lack of form’ case?”, but rather, the more involved question “are you free to marry?”. Ligamen cases can be quite involved. Leaving this to a trained professional with deep canon law knowledge seems the responsible thing to do.)

can count on one hand the number of times where it looked like (not to mention, was proven) a Party had a nullifying error or intention against the sacramental nature of his/her marriage. It just doesn’t happen.

I’m guessing that @HomeschoolDad is thinking more along the lines of an intention against permanence than an intention against sacramentality, don’t you think? In fact, a lack of awareness of the indissolubility of marriage was, after all, what Pope Francis was talking about in those comments, wasn’t it?

I think there is a place within the nullity process for a faciliator to ask “did you really understand the total meaning of what you were doing?”, then go over “this”, and “this”, and “this”, and manage to tease it out of them “you really didn’t grasp what marriage is , did you?”.

Yeah, but now you’ve moved from a simple “lack of form” (which some priests have been delegated to process) to an actual full-blown nullity case (which priests are not delegated to do on their own).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Then why in the world don’t we do that here? Aren’t the tribunals overworked enough as it is?

I’m glad we do it here. To be honest, it’s important enough that it seems irresponsible to entrust it to the average priest in a parish, who has maybe two semesters of work in canon law, and is overworked enough that it’s quite likely that he’d just fluff through it or delegate it to someone who has even less canon law knowledge!

(On the face of it, it sure seems easy enough, no? “Are you baptized Catholic? Did you attempt a valid wedding?” The problem is, it’s not just that cut-and-dried. There are often multiple weddings in a person’s life history, and the question isn’t just “is this one a ‘lack of form’ case?”, but rather, the more involved question “are you free to marry?”. Ligamen cases can be quite involved. Leaving this to a trained professional with deep canon law knowledge seems the responsible thing to do.)

I see what you mean. Given this, my question would then be “why doesn’t the rest of the world do it like we do?”.

I also see what you mean regarding ligamen. In my part of the country, the marriage histories, especially of non-Catholics, can be very complicated, like a country ballad gone horribly wrong. I don’t envy any canonist who has to deal with all that.

I’m guessing that @HomeschoolDad is thinking more along the lines of an intention against permanence than an intention against sacramentality, don’t you think?

That is part of it, but I am also thinking of a callow, theologically vapid notion of marriage in general, of which permanence would be just a part.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I think there is a place within the nullity process for a faciliator to ask “did you really understand the total meaning of what you were doing?”, then go over “this”, and “this”, and “this”, and manage to tease it out of them “you really didn’t grasp what marriage is , did you?”.

Yeah, but now you’ve moved from a simple “lack of form” (which some priests have been delegated to process) to an actual full-blown nullity case (which priests are not delegated to do on their own).

There seems to be some conflating here, and I am probably the one doing the conflating. I wasn’t thinking of lack of form declarations. Those are, in and of themselves, pretty cut and dried. There’s no need to complicate those with unnecessary assessments of whether they truly understood what they were getting themselves in for. I am thinking more of people who approach the Church for a declaration of nullity, and are clearly able to say, with benefit of hindsight, “I was young, and stupid, and in love, and had a pretty big dose of libido on top of that, and wanted to get away from home, and I found this wonderful person, and it seemed like we were just made for one another, but we got married, yes, in the Church, went through the pre-Cana, yada yada yada, but it just didn’t work out”. I would like to find some way to help out these people, without putting them through nine kinds of purgatory to do it. “What in the world was I thinking?” could be a strong indication that this was never a real marriage.

 

[Norseman82]

Not knowing the full situation, I hesitate to add the following: if the party you’re interested in did this, does he understand the depth of commitment necessary to enter into a life long union? Does he understand the requirements that the Church holds for marriage? Like no contraception, being open to children, etc? Or does he have a flippant attitude towards marriage? I would think that will need to be discussed in depth. Again I do not have the full information here, so I apologize if I’m out of line with these comments.

Agreed 7890.

 

[Norseman82]

I would generally opt for a practicing Catholic to avoid precisely these sorts of situations.

You should listen to your words here, especially considering how many single practicing Catholic men are having trouble finding compatible Catholic wives.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Ana_v:

I would generally opt for a practicing Catholic to avoid precisely these sorts of situations.

You should listen to your words here, especially considering how many single practicing Catholic men are having trouble finding compatible Catholic wives.

Agreed. This is a largely unspoken problem in contemporary Catholic circles.

I realize that there are many fine reasons given for marrying based upon compatibility irrespective of religious difference, but one thing that gets lost too often, I think, is the idea of “what will happen to the religious upbringing of our children if I, a Catholic, die suddenly and am not around to teach our children the Faith?”. I’ve always been a little flummoxed as to how non-Catholics can teach, with the conviction of one who believes it themselves, other people, especially children, “how to be Catholic”.

Homely little story time — you’ll have to forgive me if this is a bit maudlin — when I was a youngster, not yet Catholic, didn’t even know what Catholicism was, a neighbor lady took me, along with other neighborhood kids including her daughter, to Vacation Bible School at the Church of God downtown. Another sweet little lady started teaching us about the Passion of Jesus and burst into tears as she was telling us about it. I felt so bad for her, but being basically a religious illiterate — church was not a priority in our family — I couldn’t understand why she was so sad. You can’t fake that. By the same token, how does someone who doesn’t believe in the Faith, or certain key doctrines thereof, teach them with conviction? How does a non-Catholic teach the Real Presence when they don’t believe it themselves? Devotion to Our Lady? Choosing at least dry martyrdom rather than denying a moral teaching of the Church, when such denial and disobedience would make one’s life easier? I taught the latter concept to my son just the other day. How would someone who doesn’t believe in those teachings do that? Anyone?

 

[Gorgias]

“What in the world was I thinking ?” could be a strong indication that this was never a real marriage.

“Poor judgement”, though, per se, isn’t a cause for nullity. There are causes that are similar, but they tend to suppose a psychological incapacity. “I was young and stupid” shouldn’t imply an invalid marriage.

 

[Lara]

I wouldn’t date this guy because he shows poor judgement. If he recognized his fault and had a good insight into the subjects he was discussing, wouldn’t he be in RCIA now or returning to his Catholic roots? Perhaps he will be ripe to marry in five years but I wouldn’t go along for the ride there.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

“What in the world was I thinking ?” could be a strong indication that this was never a real marriage.

“Poor judgement”, though, per se, isn’t a cause for nullity. There are causes that are similar, but they tend to suppose a psychological incapacity. “I was young and stupid” shouldn’t imply an invalid marriage.

No, but it could indicate other things that were wrong from the get-go, that would fall under grounds for nullity. This article deals quite well with the “hot mess” that some marriages can be.

As traditional and “iron rod” as I tend to be about matters Catholic, I just want to help people. I don’t want to see people trapped for life and unable to marry validly, if it can possibly be helped. Our society and culture do not exactly make for an environment where people are inspired to ponder the utter truth and bald reality about everything that goes into a marriage, about everything that marriage is (and what it is not). And it can’t be ignored that willingness to use contraception plays a part in this. That alone totally changes the very nature of the marriage.

I would like to see a lot more “quality control on the front end” — possibly a longer and more intensive pre-Cana experience, with vigilance for those couples who exhibit “danger signals” up front — perhaps make them face these issues and, if it’s bad enough, get them to reconsider the whole idea of marrying one another at this time — and, yes, a complete course of instruction in NFP along with reading Humanae vitae.

As far as “danger signals”, I knew of one couple, contemplating marriage, and the woman wanted them to go to counseling to deal with some fairly serious problems in their relationship. All well and good, but I had to wonder whether the mere fact of having to get counseling to resolve issues, possibly meant that they should reconsider the relationship in the first place — who marries someone when they know there are going to be problems from day one? (The answer, just putting it as charitably as I can, is that he was an exceptionally good catch, and she was desperate to snag him. She all but admitted as much to me.) Thankfully, they did break up. Probably saved both of them a lot of heartache.

 

[TheLittleLady]

“What in the world was I thinking ?” could be a strong indication that this was never a real marriage.

Every married person I have ever known has this thought at one time or another, often many times. Since we do not marry saints, we marry humans who can be annoying at best.

After the rosy glasses of new have cleared one sees the warts. Does not have any impact on validity of the marriage.