Dating during annulment process?

[jmcrae]

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.

We are talking here about married people. Married people ought not to date. Obviously, unmarried people need to date “safely.” We are not discussing unmarried people here, though.

A Catholic who has received a civil divorce is still considered to be married and must behave as if he or she were married, until the Marriage Tribunal rules to the contrary.

Only after you receive the Declaration of Nullity are you free to begin to seek out a new spouse through dating.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

The marriage exists until the Marriage Tribunal states in writing that it never did.

We are not supposed to “anticipate” the Tribunal’s decision and “rule in our own favour” before the Tribunal has finished examining the evidence.

 

[dulcissima]

The marriage exists until the Marriage Tribunal states in writing that it never did.

We are not supposed to “anticipate” the Tribunal’s decision and “rule in our own favour” before the Tribunal has finished examining the evidence.

A declaration of nullity is a finding that a marriage never existed. Until a declaration of nullity is received, one is not free to marry, but that does not mean that one has to live exactly the same as a married person.

Hand holding and kissing are not reserved exclusively for marriage. People who are living in a marriage do not go on dates, hold hands, or kiss others because that would be hurtful to the person that they are married to and could jeopardize the marriage. Once someone is civilly divorced and has petitioned for a declaration of nullity, those considerations aren’t really the same.

While it is the safe and prudent thing to not date and to behave as if you were married, I don’t believe that there are any prohibitions against dating. It can be dangerous to venture out of such assured safety, but there is nothing that I have seen that would declare it to be objectively sinful. I think it is a bit much to tell people that they can’t, and that they are committing adultery if they hold hands with someone.

 

[jmcrae]

While it is the safe and prudent thing to not date and to behave as if you were married, I don’t believe that there are any prohibitions against dating. It can be dangerous to venture out of such assured safety, but there is nothing that I have seen that would declare it to be objectively sinful. I think it is a bit much to tell people that they can’t, and that they are committing adultery if they hold hands with someone.

I didn’t say it was adultery, but it’s not the behaviour of someone who might still be married.

Keep in mind, the Tribunal does not spend your time and money on formalities. If it’s “obvious” that there was no marriage, then you would have received a letter of freedom to marry the same day that you petitioned for the Declaration of Nullity.

I think it’s dangerous to date before you have the Declaration of Nullity, because if you are denied the Declaration of Nullity, you are not likely to stop dating. (It’s way easier to not start dating, than it is to stop.) Instead, you are more likely to leave the Catholic Church and marry in a different religion, or in the courthouse, while rationalizing that you can have a death-bed conversion at the end of your life.

(This almost never happens, by the way. The vast majority of people die in the same spiritual condition that they were in on the day they began to be sick with their final illness. All the priests I know say the same thing - that the only people who ever call them for death-bed confessions are people who have made a previous confession within the same month - they never get called to the bed side of someone who used to be Catholic but stopped practicing because of a marriage issue, etc.)

 

[dulcissima]

There is a lot of difference between saying it is imprudent to date while in the annulment process and saying that you can not or that it is adultery, which is what some previous posters did assert.

 

[pnewton]

A Catholic who has received a civil divorce is still considered to be married and must behave as if he or she were married, until the Marriage Tribunal rules to the contrary.

Only after you receive the Declaration of Nullity are you free to begin to seek out a new spouse through dating.

Where is this in the CCC?

The marriage exists until the Marriage Tribunal states in writing that it never did.

This sentence does not even make sense, metaphysically. If a tribunal says that a marriage never existed, how could it have existed up until that time?

Again, the question was what the Church teaches. Regardless of how much prudential advice is given, unless these opinions are backed up by Church teaching, it is not answering the question.

While I am on the subject of the original post, the post is not about even pursuing marriage, but having a romantic relationship. Are the two always equal? Not neccessarily. Many high school and college age date without any intention of getting married until they are older.

 

[pnewton]

If it’s “obvious” that there was no marriage, then you would have received a letter of freedom to marry the same day that you petitioned for the Declaration of Nullity.

I do not know where your parish is, but in mine the time is measured in months and years, not days, regardless of how simple or difficult the facts are.

 

[rpp]

Marriages in the Catholic Church are presumed valid. An annulment petition asks the diocesan Tribunal to investigate and determine if the marriage is indeed valid.

Therefore, a divorced person is presumed to be married until the Tribunal issues its decision. If the tribunal determines that the marriage is valid, then the couple is determined to actually be sacramentally married. If the tribunal determines the marriage was not valid, then the person is really single and has never been sacramentally married.

In my case, my wife and I were separated for a very long time before she divorced me. The divorce was a long time coming and our problems pre-dated my conversion to the Catholic Church from atheism. My conversion, in her mind, made it impossible for us to reconcile as she did not want to be married to a Christian. She fled the country and eventually divorced me from overseas.

Oddly the week the divorce was final, I met a very nice Catholic lady and we dated for a few months. She too was awaiting word on her her annulment. This was before I submitted my nullity petition.

About 7 or 8 months after my divorce was final, I submitted my annulment petition.

It took about 13 months and in that time I dated or at least met, several women.

And I was being very hypocritical because I would not date a woman who did not have her annulment already in hand and was free to marry. What a jerk I was.

In addition, I could not really open myself up to them as I did not want to get too involved should the tribunal determine my marriage was valid. How terrible it would be, and what a grave temptation, to fall deeply in love with a woman then not be able to marry her.

Sadly, the habit of holding myself emotionally was not very healthy in the long run. I have to learn to connect emotionally with someone again; I have to learn to open myself up. That is hard to do.

I believe dating when one is not free to marry is, for me at least, a very serious mistake.

Please learn from my bad example. If you are cannot get married, do not date.

Of course, now that the Church has determined I am free to marry, I am not really in a position to date anyone as I am scheduled for major knee surgery next month and may be off my feet for a number of months.

Such is life.

 

[jmcrae]

I do not know where your parish is, but in mine the time is measured in months and years, not days, regardless of how simple or difficult the facts are.

The months and years are when there is a situation of doubt. They come the same day, when it’s obvious - such as when a Catholic has married a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic venue, and the Bishop of that jurisdiction had never even heard of the couple, let alone given any dispensation.

They get the petition, call the appropriate Bishop (or Diocese, if the Bishop has passed on) to assure that he never gave a dispensation to the marriage, and then put the Declaration of Nullity into the mail. No fuss, no muss.

But if the Bishop did give them a dispensation (or knows the couple and doesn’t remember not doing so), then they have to go through everything else with a fine tooth comb to see whether there might be other grounds for a Declaration of Nullity, and they pursue those until it becomes clear one way or the other, the status of the marriage. This is the part that can take months or years.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

the marriage exists unless and until it is proven invalid-- action taken under civil law is meaningless in this situation. married people may NOT engage in “romantic relationships” with someone not their spouse, whether we are speaking of Miss Manners’ etiquette or Christian moral teaching.

 

[Red_Meg]

The question was answered pretty definitely by Fr. Serpa: No dating prior to annulment.

Margaret

 

[pnewton]

FYI - The catholic church teaching (official) on what constitutes adultery:

2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations—even transient ones—they commit adultery

from:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm

 

[jmcrae]

FYI - The catholic church teaching (official) on what constitutes adultery: from:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm

She wasn’t being accused of adultery, just FYI.

It is a separate mortal sin to date others as if single while still married.

Someone who also had sex on a date while still married would have two sins to confess in the Confessional; not just one - both the dating while still considered married, and the sex.

 

[pnewton]

the marriage exists unless and until it is proven invalid-- action taken under civil law is meaningless in this situation…

… *presumed *to exist. A tribunal does not change anything objectively. It only determines what the objective situation is. If an annulment is granted, then there never was a marriage, even during the time of the date. Objectively, what grave matter would have existed?

 

[pnewton]

She wasn’t being accused of adultery, just FYI.

It is a separate mortal sin to date others as if single while still married.

Actually, in post 11, it was called adultery. So again, since grave matter is required for mortal sin, what grave matter exists?

I, too, would not advocate dating pre-annulment, at least in almost all circumstances, but I have problems calling anything mortal sin not specifically spelled out in the Catechism as such. No, the CCC does not cover every eventuallity, but it pretty much catches all the mortal stuff. I am not arguing, as much as working through this stuff, as a rather complex issue of moral theology.

Earlier I gave a scenario involving a convert, post-divorce, which offers the more complex situation. There are several ways that a marriage could be know to be invalid when dealing with a non-Catholic marriage. For instance, a pre-nuptial agreement shows that at least one party had a belief against non-permanancy. If one party had a vasectomy before the wedding to avoid children having children in the marriage, it can not possibly be valid.

I have another thought to muddy the waters. If a couple is married prior to conversion, they are allowed to live chastely as brother and sister, obstaining from sex, and receive communion. In this context, if a couple was dating chastely prior to conversion how could it be considered a sin if they maintained their chastity? I believe the situations of converts require more thought. One poster mentioned that they had consulted two different priests. Surely, at the bare minimum, anyone ought to seek advice from a holy priest, one on one, if they are in a similar situation.

 

[dulcissima]

All of this, including Fr. Serpa’s AAA post are opinion. My priest has a different answer than Fr. Serpa. Scroll down to the penultimate paragraph to see what he says about dating while waiting for an annulment: stpaschal.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=114&Itemid=86

What do you do when you get differing answers from priests? You consult the Catechism. If one of them appears to be contradicting Church teaching, then his advice is not the one that should be taken. If it is not something that is clearly spelled out, then this is a case where someone will need to have a one on one conversation with God. If you are honest with yourself and have truly sought to understand Church teaching, you do need to trust your conscience.

Where I am at with this…I thought when I applied for my declaration of nullity 9 months ago that I would wait until I had an answer before I started dating. I’ve reached the point though where I have been on my own now for over 2 years. I’ve taken an honest look at Church teaching. I’ve talked to 3 priests. I’ve talked to my counselor, and I am very carefully giving the idea of dating a try, re-evaluating it all as I go along.

That being said, rpp, you’ve given some good insight into why it might not be such a good idea. I’m perfectly willing to make mistakes and learn from them, provided I am not offending God while I do it. In some ways, I’m feeling like it is a good idea to be in this situation where I am doing this very limited type of dating, where I can’t get into a real relationship. This is because prior to these two dates I have had, I never dated anyone other than the one man I married. What a disaster that was.

I still see nothing authoratative that instructs that dating while waiting for an annulment is a mortal sin or is the same thing as adultery.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, in post 11, it was called adultery. So again, since grave matter is required for mortal sin, what grave matter exists?

I, too, would not advocate dating pre-annulment, at least in almost all circumstances, but I have problems calling anything mortal sin not specifically spelled out in the Catechism as such. No, the CCC does not cover every eventuallity, but it pretty much catches all the mortal stuff. I am not arguing, as much as working through this stuff, as a rather complex issue of moral theology.

Why are you looking in the CCC? This is a matter of Canon Law; not a matter of theology.

Earlier I gave a scenario involving a convert, post-divorce, which offers the more complex situation. There are several ways that a marriage could be know to be invalid when dealing with a non-Catholic marriage.

If it is obvious, then the Tribunal will say so, and give the Declaration of Nullity immediately. They don’t waste people’s time and money seeking out the obvious. They only do research in cases of doubt.

For instance, a pre-nuptial agreement shows that at least one party had a belief against non-permanancy.

This would be a case where, the very minute the pre-nuptual agreeement was shown to them, they would issue the Declaration of Nullity.

If one party had a vasectomy before the wedding to avoid children having children in the marriage, it can not possibly be valid.

And again, you would not be waiting around for a result from the Tribunal - they would tell you straight away about this result.

 

[whatevergirl]

… *presumed *to exist. A tribunal does not change anything objectively. It only determines what the objective situation is. If an annulment is granted, then there never was a marriage, even during the time of the date. Objectively, what grave matter would have existed?

True, but suppose the marriage did exist? It appears that one is not open to date, after a civil divorce, until the Church declares the marriage null.

 

[dulcissima]

jmcrae, what case have you ever heard of that was not thoroughly investigated complete with testimony from witnesses? I have never heard of a case, no matter how straightforward, which was decided upon immediately. I mean, I submitted letters that were signed and postmarked prior to my marriage that corroborated the grounds that I was seeking. My marriage could also be found invalid on a number of grounds. It still goes through the normal Tribunal process. Your premise of instantaneous findings just doesn’t exist in the real world.

 

[rpp]

dulcissima,

I tend to agree with you. I am not convinced that dating in a non-committal manner while waiting for a Tribunal decision is sinful. I might be able to be convinced, but I have not seen solid evidence.

I my case, my priest and my spiritual director said they felt it was okay for me to date while awaiting the annulment. They each qualified their answer by adding that they do not normally recommend people date but that since they both felt my marriage was invalid, they thought it would not be a problem.

While I did not ask my priest, I did ask my spiritual director (who is a nun) why she normally suggests people do not date while awaiting the annulment. Her answer was very interesting. She said that there are several reasons.

First, of course, if a person becomes seriously involved with someone, and the marriage is declared valid, that becomes a serious problem.

Next she said that people need time to recover from the failed relationship. Rebound romance usually does not last.

Finally, she said that a divorced person must re-learn chastity in relationships. She was convinced that a person who had been sexually active with their “former roommate” (her phrase for the divorced person’s former spouse) is will be more difficult for them to remain chaste when dating. So a certain spiritual focus on chastity is also needed.

Never once did she suggest that it was sinful nor did my priest. And both of them are quite orthodox.

Good luck with your annulment petition. After 9 months, the end should be getting close.

So, dulcissima, do you ever get up to Oregon?