Dating during annulment process?

[whatevergirl]

I decided to ask this question on here, since reading a few threads that deal with people who are dating others, but are going through the annulment process. What is the Church’s stance on being in the process of getting an annulment (and you are offiically legally divorced) and pursuing a dating relationship? Not just friendship with a member of the opposite sex, but a romantic relationship? Obviously we know the Church’s stance on sexuality outside of marriage, but if the couple is kissing, holding hands, basically exhibiting signs that they are exclusively dating–is that acceptable in the eyes of The Church? Reply when you can…thanks

 

[jmcrae]

I decided to ask this question on here, since reading a few threads that deal with people who are dating others, but are going through the annulment process. What is the Church’s stance on being in the process of getting an annulment (and you are offiically legally divorced) and pursuing a dating relationship? Not just friendship with a member of the opposite sex, but a romantic relationship? Obviously we know the Church’s stance on sexuality outside of marriage, but if the couple is kissing, holding hands, basically exhibiting signs that they are exclusively dating–is that acceptable in the eyes of The Church? Reply when you can…thanks

A person who has been the bride or groom in a wedding before, and who has not yet received a Declaration of Nullity from a Tribunal for that marriage, is still married to that person.

We as Catholics don’t believe in divorce - not in the sense that we think divorce is a bad idea, but rather, in the sense that we do not believe that divorce can exist. “What God has joined together let no man (human being) put asunder” is not just a line of pretty words; it is the literal truth. No human being, whether judge, or cheated-on spouse, nor any human being on earth, has the power to dissolve a marriage. “Till death us do part” is intended to be taken literally.

It is simply not possible to cause a marriage to cease to exist.

This is why the Tribunal investigates to see whether a marriage, in fact, existed, to begin with. Often, they find that it did not. Sometimes, they find that it did. But they cannot alter reality. So, until it has been proven otherwise, “divorced” people have to assume that they are still married, until death they do part - which means, no dating, and no looking around for a potential new spouse, etc.

 

[whatevergirl]

A person who has been the bride or groom in a wedding before, and who has not yet received a Declaration of Nullity from a Tribunal for that marriage, is still married to that person.

We as Catholics don’t believe in divorce - not in the sense that we think divorce is a bad idea, but rather, in the sense that we do not believe that divorce can exist. “What God has joined together let no man (human being) put asunder” is not just a line of pretty words; it is the literal truth. No human being, whether judge, or cheated-on spouse, nor any human being on earth, has the power to dissolve a marriage. “Till death us do part” is intended to be taken literally.

It is simply not possible to cause a marriage to cease to exist.

This is why the Tribunal investigates to see whether a marriage, in fact, existed, to begin with. Often, they find that it did not. Sometimes, they find that it did. But they cannot alter reality. So, until it has been proven otherwise, “divorced” people have to assume that they are still married, until death they do part - which means, no dating, and no looking around for a potential new spouse, etc.

that makes perfect sense, and frankly, I’m not sure I ever fully understood it. I understood annulments, and the reason behind them–but the Church isn’t telling a couple…it’s ok to have a divorce through an annulment, rather, what is in question is if a marriage even existed. So interesting! Thanks j!

 

[whatevergirl]

so, then what you’re saying is dating would be a no no…because if a couple was living under the same roof and legally still married, they obviously wouldn’t be dating other people. Regardless of the legality, the Church cannot grant someone a divorce, because it doesn’t believe in it. So, the Church would view someone as dating during the annulment process, as commiting adultery? Even if there was no sex involved?

 

[jmcrae]

so, then what you’re saying is dating would be a no no…because if a couple was living under the same roof and legally still married, they obviously wouldn’t be dating other people.

Yes, exactly.

Until you receive a Declaration of Nullity, you don’t do anything that you wouldn’t do if you were still in a civil contract with your spouse, other than look into the possibility of getting a Declaration of Nullity.

Which brings up another point: the “divorce” that you get in a courtroom breaks the civil contract of the marriage; not the marriage itself.

There are times (like in a situation where there is abuse, or cases where there has been adultery) where it might even be necessary to break the civil contract (the Code of Canon Law calls these “intolerable living conditions”), so that the abused/injured party can get to a place of safety and/or gain control of his or her own finances, but even in these situations where a civil divorce is a good idea, it still doesn’t mean that the marriage is ended - nor does it necessarily mean that the marriage itself was automatically invalid.

 

[Mankney]

It also is not fair to the person you are dating. This person is dating you and becoming very emotionally attached to you. Imagine then one day the annullment is denied and you need to stop seeing them. It is very unfair to that person and could cause them great distress.

Also what happens if you are in love and you choose to not stop dating each other, then your souls are in danger.

It gets messy all the way around. Best to avoid it entirely.

 

[puzzleannie]

I decided to ask this question on here, since reading a few threads that deal with people who are dating others, but are going through the annulment process. What is the Church’s stance on being in the process of getting an annulment (and you are offiically legally divorced) and pursuing a dating relationship?

it is simply not possible for a Catholic do enter into a dating or romantic relationship while still married to another person. Married people cannot date, simple as that. UNLESS an until the first marriage is investigated and found to be invalid from its root, there can be no thought of entering into a new relationship.

 

[Gertabelle]

it is simply not possible for a Catholic do enter into a dating or romantic relationship while still married to another person. Married people cannot date, simple as that. UNLESS an until the first marriage is investigated and found to be invalid from its root, there can be no thought of entering into a new relationship.

Ditto to what Puzzleannie said. The point of a Catholic entering into this sort of dating relationship should be to discern compatibility for marriage. A civilly divorce person without an anullment is not eligible for sacramental marriage.

 

[catharina]

It also is not fair to the person you are dating. This person is dating you and becoming very emotionally attached to you. Imagine then one day the annullment is denied and you need to stop seeing them. It is very unfair to that person and could cause them great distress.

Also what happens if you are in love and you choose to not stop dating each other, then your souls are in danger.

It gets messy all the way around. Best to avoid it entirely.

It’s essential to avoid it entirely.

I pity the poor priests who must face “new couples” who are still a part of “old marriages.”

 

[pnewton]

I guess I do not agree with others have posted here. I do not think the catechism addresses the issue. The Bible does not call such actions sinful. Therefore, I have to fall back on the old Christianity 101 adage of St. Paul, that we are at liberty where something is not sinful.

Now there are ways that dating would not be prudent, for example if one dated in a way that put one in near occasion of sin, like stopping over for a night cap. Another problem would be getting too close where one would be tempted to sin for the violate Catholic teaching on marriage. But holding hands, even kissing, can be done in a safe way.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I guess I do not agree with others have posted here. I do not think the catechism addresses the issue. The Bible does not call such actions sinful. Therefore, I have to fall back on the old Christianity 101 adage of St. Paul, that we are at liberty where something is not sinful.

It’s called adultery. The Catechism addresses it. The Bible says it’s sinful.

 

[pnewton]

It’s called adultery. The Catechism addresses it. The Bible says it’s sinful.

No, I am fairly certain that adultery involves a wee bit more than holding hands and kissing. If you re-read the original poster she acknowledges that sexualty outside marriage is wrong. Adultery is not the question asked.

 

[Gertabelle]

I guess I do not agree with others have posted here. I do not think the catechism addresses the issue. The Bible does not call such actions sinful. Therefore, I have to fall back on the old Christianity 101 adage of St. Paul, that we are at liberty where something is not sinful.

Now there are ways that dating would not be prudent, for example if one dated in a way that put one in near occasion of sin, like stopping over for a night cap. Another problem would be getting too close where one would be tempted to sin for the violate Catholic teaching on marriage. But holding hands, even kissing, can be done in a safe way.

With respect to Saint Paul, I don’t think the scriptures or the Church should have to list out every single “don’t” – sometimes we have to use our reason. It doesn’t say in scripture or in the CCC that I shouldn’t spit up phlegm onto a public sidewalk, but my reason indicates that doing so would be an act of disrespect and selfishness (except, for example, in some extreme medical situation, of course).

Perhaps the question then should be asked, “What is the purpose of dating?” I don’t have my catechism with me, but I doubt it specifically defines the dating relationship. Still, we Catholics can use our reason to determine that ALL of our actions should be within the teachings of Christ and His Church. Romantic kissing done without any sense of commitment would almost certainly constitute a sin against chastity.

What would be the point of kissing someone unless you were discerning a marriage in the future (perhaps even a long way into the future)? As Catholics we are not called to follow the teachings of “Sex and City” or even shows on the Disney channel. Society says dating doesn’t mean anything.

Reason makes it clear to me, however, that romantic kissing is not “no big deal.” It means something in the emotional and physical feelings it creates. A civilly divorced person without an anullment should consider him/herself still married and should not engage in actions which create these feelings in another until and only if the Church declares that person free to enter into a sacramental marriage. Otherwise these actions (i.e., romantic kissing) are out of their appropriate context.

Just my two cents.

 

[Red_Meg]

I guess I do not agree with others have posted here. I do not think the catechism addresses the issue. The Bible does not call such actions sinful. Therefore, I have to fall back on the old Christianity 101 adage of St. Paul, that we are at liberty where something is not sinful.

The married state is a binary function-- on or off, married or not married. Nothing in between. If someone has entered into a presumably valid marriage (and it is presumed valid until determined otherwise by the tribunal) then it doesn’t matter if the spouses are happily married until one roof, at each other’s throats, or living separately, divorced and no longer speaking. Married is married. The divorced couple (and remember, divorce is a purely civil contruct) is still just as married as the happy couple until the tribunal says otherwise. The divorced couple has no more right to go off dating, kissing, romantically pursuing, etc. someone else while they are still married.

Frankly, the catechism doesn’t have to express this waiting-for-annulment scenario in painstaking detail. It’s already clear from the Church’s understanding of marriage, exclusivity and permanence being the salient points here.

Pnewton, if you were correct, then there’d be nothing to stop me from heading out and “dating” other guys, despite having happily celebrated sixteen years of marriage last month. Thankfully, you are not correct. I apologize for coming down so strongly on this, but there’s really no wiggle room here.

To the OP, I strongly urge you to refrain from any entanglements at this time. Your affections are not yours to give away at this point in time. And I’m sure you’ll find no end of moral support and encouragement on these forums to continue to live as a married woman until and unless a declaration of nullity is issued.

Best,

Margaret

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

No, I am fairly certain that adultery involves a wee bit more than holding hands and kissing. If you re-read the original poster she acknowledges that sexualty outside marriage is wrong. Adultery is not the question asked.

What would you call it if a married man is dating someone who isn’t his wife? Or a married woman dating someone who isn’t her husband?

“Dating” has a meaning that is different from a casual friendship. Married people shouldn’t be holding hands and kissing someone other than their spouses. And until/unless a declaration of nullity is received, the people we’re talking about are married.

 

[dulcissima]

Is it adultery to hold hands or kiss someone when you are divorced and in the annulment process? I’m not so sure about that. Is it fornication when two single people date and kiss and hold hands?

From the advice that I have been given by a couple of different priests, it is okay to go out socially, but one needs to be very clear that you can not enter into a relationship where there marriage is being proposed. Close emotional relationships are not necessarily sinful, but can be imprudent, I have been advised.

I’ve got to admit, going through the soul searching needed to be in the annulment process, it feels very strange to me to have people on these forums tell me that I must behave exactly as if I were married. To me that seems like it would require me to deny reason and logic. I know the truth, and I am waiting for the Tribunal to confirm the truth. The way I live my life is in no way like a married person. I don’t live with my “husband”. I spend a lot of time alone.

That being said, I’ve gone on two dates during this time period. The first was with someone who has never been married, but wants to get married. That was a mistake. He did not seem capable of understanding where I was, and clearly was wanting a relationship, wanted to hold my hand and tried to kiss me, which I dodged. That just did not sit well with my conscience at all. I had been pretty clear and upfront with him in advance, but I guess he didn’t get it.

Then this weekend I went out with someone who is in the same place that I am at right now. I know enough to know that his grounds for an annulment are very good. We went to watch the start of a bike race since he is an avid biker, then went out for lunch, then sat on some rocks at the beach for a couple of hours and talked. It was really nice and just the sort of a thing I think we both needed. No pressure, just a nice conversation with someone who I could really relate to. I have no idea if we will go anywhere from there, or if we may end up being friends. I did enjoy it though, and in no way does it equate to adultery. If we had held hands, and maybe even if we had kissed, I don’t know that that would have been sinful. I think it depends more on the thoughts and intentions behind those acts, because I don’t think that they are objectively sinful acts in and of themself.

 

[puzzleannie]

I we are at liberty where something is not sinful.

Now there are ways that dating would not be prudent, for example if one dated in a way that put one in near occasion of sin, .

in what way shape or form is it not sinful to date a married person? the OP asked specifically about “romantic involvement”–what possible scenaria can you imagine that makes such a situation with a married person possible and not sinful? if your husband (or wife) did these things while still together with you, would you object? if not, why not?

 

[pnewton]

With respect to Saint Paul, I don’t think the scriptures or the Church should have to list out every single “don’t” – …Reason makes it clear to me, however, that romantic kissing is not “no big deal.”…
Just my two cents.

I agree that it is not “no big deal” and many here have pointed out arguments and pitfalls that must be weighed in this situation. However, what was asked for was not our two cents, but rather what was acceptable in the eyes of the Church. Or, does the Church lay this out for us as sinful. Actually the Church does lay out what sin is pretty well and rather systematically.

 

[pnewton]

it feels very strange to me to have people on these forums tell me that I must behave exactly as if I were married.

I guess that is the crux of the issue. Consider this, if the annulment is granted, that is not the day the marriage is dissolved. It is a recognition that no sacramental marriage existed to begin with. To answer puzzleannie, the difference is that if you are married and living in a state of marriage, then that state is something day to day and definite. If one is divorce and awaiting an annulment, then they are not neccessarily married.

PA asked for an example I believe it would be acceptable. Let us say one was divorced for a period of time so that one overcame the grief of separation and the other party has already remarried. You just became Catholic when you and the person you are dating have discussed religion and both have undergone conversion. You know you will have to have to have an annulment first and are willing to wait and have the prudence not to put yourselves in areas of temptations. Finally, you know your annulment will be approved based on the facts and criteria, meaning that you know you are in fact not sacramental married at this tim.

 

[pnewton]

in what way shape or form is it not sinful to date a married person?

Remember that this is not the question at hand. We are dealing with one divorced and awaitng annulment. No civil marriage exists. Depending on the circumstances, marriage may not exist at all.