Dating during annulment process?

[Sheeniac]

I have a friend who received her Declaration of Nullity at the very moment that they verified that her marriage to a Catholic (she was not Catholic at the time of the wedding) had not been approved by the local Bishop.

They looked at the marriage registry, saw that the wedding took place outdoors and was presided over by a JP, they consulted the Bishop’s office to check that the Bishop had not approved the wedding, and that was that; she got her Declaration of Nullity the same day, and was received into the Church the following Easter.

While away from the Church (not confirmed, fell into disbelief), I was married on the beach on St. Thomas by a J.P. to a non-Christian.

My petition for lack of form required 2 sworn letters from active Catholics. It was then submitted to the Tribunal.

From talking to many people, the processes vary all from place to place.

 

[Sheeniac]

Whatevergirl,

I’m glad you started this thread. As I may have mentioned on the other thread, my annulment process (along with my non-‘roommate’ s application) caused a very serious discussion at a party I was at.

I must say that the Church in America does NOT handle annulments well.

One friend, raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools, etc became involved with a divorced Lutheran. They consulted 3 priests in 3 separate dioceses (one where they lived, one where she grew up, and one where they were going to be moving to - this was a multi-state ). She got 3 very different answers about what would happen. One priest said they could go with some type of ‘privileged’ action, or possibly the full blown process. The other two had serious disagreements. I believe they were in person with 2 of the priests when one got fed up with the discussion and just left.

She told me that she was brought up to believe that the Church had one doctrine - of course I unthinkingly corrected her about doctrine versus canon law. Oops. She wasn’t that receptive. Her point was that it was a fairly straightforward situation and that she was shocked to find the differences in opinions.

And, she mentioned that the shorter approach would only be $900 (if they were truly eligible), versus the full approach costing $3500. In her mind, it all seemed to come down to money.

They ended up getting married in a Lutheran Church. She is now a bitter ex-Catholic.

Another friend said it was all about the money. Her mother had divorced her father back in … the 70s maybe? She was excommunicated (as happened back in the day in a way to prevent divorce). Her ex-husband had tried to kill her.

Eventually, she got the money together for an annulment, and it was granted. My friend too believed it was all about the money. Due to what she saw growing up, she is now a bitter ex-Catholic.

My BF went to an annulment evening meeting after he got divorced. He learned what was involved, but decided not to go through it because he wasn’t serious with anyone.

NO ONE told him he couldn’t or shouldn’t date.

We went to an annulment day-long workshop last year. NO ONE said that people shouldn’t date. In fact, one man who was living with someone or married again (I can’t recall) asked whether he and his ‘roommate’ should stop receiving communion until the annulment went through.

The diocese’s canon lawyer (he was giving the workshop) said they could continue to receive. The man (who was sitting in front of us) said he thought that perhaps it wasn’t right, and wasn’t doing so maybe causing a scandal?

The canon lawyer said it would cause a scandal if they both just stopped. But if they went to another Church where no one knew them, then they shouldn’t receive Communion.

The guy was by then thinking that the canon lawyer misunderstood him, and started to say something more. The priest cut him off and said something to the effect that he knew the Church law, and that the guy could look it up for himself. He threw out a number. Of course, I wrote it down.

Later, we spoke with the guy, and he asked us if we got the same impression that he did from the conversation. We all agreed that perhaps Father had misunderstood.

That night, I googled the canon law ‘number’ and read it. Sorry, I disagreed with Father.

Obviously, the diocese has a different interpretation of the situation. Is it because they are trying to reach out to people who may otherwise fall away? I don’t know.

My BF’s ex-wife is now remarried. She works at a Catholic school. She serves as an EMHC. She knew all of the priests from before they got divorced.

So now, I talk with my BF about the annulment. He is resentful of all of the above. And unfortunately, it causes him to doubt the Church. And then we see what happens with the infamous Father Pf… (well, we’re not supposed to talk about him here) and how he is allowed to openly dissent. Our diocese is adjacent to the Chicago Archdiocese.

And you know what, it is hard for him and many others to remain faithful Catholics. It is hard for many to ‘follow the rules’ so to speak, when things are in such a disarray.

My point (if I even have one) is that the Church teaches incorrectly in many places, if it teaches at all. So I think Christian charity is needed for those who are considering annulments or are undergoing them. While I do not believe in the Internal Forum solution, I can see where many people go down that route when they look at the Church.

 

[LittleDeb]

I do have to agree with pnewton and dulcissima strongly on many points here.

For me, one of the most important facts is that the process of the tribunal is broken for many converts.

My husband’s process was a formal case because his former roommate (thanks rpp DH will love that) was baptized some random protestant denomination as an infant. Since there was a Christian in the marriage it was considered a formal case. It took a year. He had to wait for her non-response by “tribunal protocol.” Every time a new document was sent out and she didn’t respond he waited a month and then the next step could proceed.

My DH nearly did not become Catholic for the one and only reason of the tribunal process. How was he, then a non-baptized, 20 year old supposed to have any idea what marriage meant to the Catholic Church? It was his former roommate (wife) who was baptized as an infant. She was the one who attempted marriage with no intention on permanency. It was she who found fidelity too limiting and had no idea what it meant to be faithful when she attempted marriage. They had more grounds for invalidity than validity, but that one thing, her baptism, made a non-Catholic have to go through hell on earth rehashing his past.

He told me on our first date that he was divorced. He didn’t know enough about Catholicism to realize what a big deal it was going to be. He met with an annulment advocate after knowing me one month. He filed for his annulment because he knew he wanted to marry me. That spoke volumes to my family. They were against our dating too.

He began his process of conversion during that time. He is now fully Catholic, promotes NFP and Catholic family life, and is a 3rd degree Knight of Columbus (soon to be fourth.) There are those here who would say I shouldn’t have dated him because he wasn’t free to marry. I strongly disagree. He was free to marry. The tribunal just declared what was already a fact.

It is called a ‘Declaration of Nullity.’ The tribunal process is a broken format, even though it has an accurate assessment of what creates a marriage.

 

[whatevergirl]

Whatevergirl,

I’m glad you started this thread. As I may have mentioned on the other thread, my annulment process (along with my non-‘roommate’ s application) caused a very serious discussion at a party I was at.

I must say that the Church in America does NOT handle annulments well.

One friend, raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools, etc became involved with a divorced Lutheran. They consulted 3 priests in 3 separate dioceses (one where they lived, one where she grew up, and one where they were going to be moving to - this was a multi-state ). She got 3 very different answers about what would happen. One priest said they could go with some type of ‘privileged’ action, or possibly the full blown process. The other two had serious disagreements. I believe they were in person with 2 of the priests when one got fed up with the discussion and just left.

She told me that she was brought up to believe that the Church had one doctrine - of course I unthinkingly corrected her about doctrine versus canon law. Oops. She wasn’t that receptive. Her point was that it was a fairly straightforward situation and that she was shocked to find the differences in opinions.

And, she mentioned that the shorter approach would only be $900 (if they were truly eligible), versus the full approach costing $3500. In her mind, it all seemed to come down to money.

They ended up getting married in a Lutheran Church. She is now a bitter ex-Catholic.

Another friend said it was all about the money. Her mother had divorced her father back in … the 70s maybe? She was excommunicated (as happened back in the day in a way to prevent divorce). Her ex-husband had tried to kill her.

Eventually, she got the money together for an annulment, and it was granted. My friend too believed it was all about the money. Due to what she saw growing up, she is now a bitter ex-Catholic.

My BF went to an annulment evening meeting after he got divorced. He learned what was involved, but decided not to go through it because he wasn’t serious with anyone.

NO ONE told him he couldn’t or shouldn’t date.

We went to an annulment day-long workshop last year. NO ONE said that people shouldn’t date. In fact, one man who was living with someone or married again (I can’t recall) asked whether he and his ‘roommate’ should stop receiving communion until the annulment went through.

The diocese’s canon lawyer (he was giving the workshop) said they could continue to receive. The man (who was sitting in front of us) said he thought that perhaps it wasn’t right, and wasn’t doing so maybe causing a scandal?

The canon lawyer said it would cause a scandal if they both just stopped. But if they went to another Church where no one knew them, then they shouldn’t receive Communion.

The guy was by then thinking that the canon lawyer misunderstood him, and started to say something more. The priest cut him off and said something to the effect that he knew the Church law, and that the guy could look it up for himself. He threw out a number. Of course, I wrote it down.

Later, we spoke with the guy, and he asked us if we got the same impression that he did from the conversation. We all agreed that perhaps Father had misunderstood.

That night, I googled the canon law ‘number’ and read it. Sorry, I disagreed with Father.

Obviously, the diocese has a different interpretation of the situation. Is it because they are trying to reach out to people who may otherwise fall away? I don’t know.

My BF’s ex-wife is now remarried. She works at a Catholic school. She serves as an EMHC. She knew all of the priests from before they got divorced.

So now, I talk with my BF about the annulment. He is resentful of all of the above. And unfortunately, it causes him to doubt the Church. And then we see what happens with the infamous Father Pf… (well, we’re not supposed to talk about him here) and how he is allowed to openly dissent. Our diocese is adjacent to the Chicago Archdiocese.

And you know what, it is hard for him and many others to remain faithful Catholics. It is hard for many to ‘follow the rules’ so to speak, when things are in such a disarray.

My point (if I even have one) is that the Church teaches incorrectly in many places, if it teaches at all. So I think Christian charity is needed for those who are considering annulments or are undergoing them. While I do not believe in the Internal Forum solution, I can see where many people go down that route when they look at the Church.

I’m so happy you found this thread, Sheeniac…I was hoping you’d find it. Hopefully, it will help you and others who are in similiar situations. God bless!

 

[whatevergirl]

I do have to agree with pnewton and dulcissima strongly on many points here.

For me, one of the most important facts is that the process of the tribunal is broken for many converts.

My husband’s process was a formal case because his former roommate (thanks rpp DH will love that) was baptized some random protestant denomination as an infant. Since there was a Christian in the marriage it was considered a formal case. It took a year. He had to wait for her non-response by “tribunal protocol.” Every time a new document was sent out and she didn’t respond he waited a month and then the next step could proceed.

My DH nearly did not become Catholic for the one and only reason of the tribunal process. How was he, then a non-baptized, 20 year old supposed to have any idea what marriage meant to the Catholic Church? It was his former roommate (wife) who was baptized as an infant. She was the one who attempted marriage with no intention on permanency. It was she who found fidelity too limiting and had no idea what it meant to be faithful when she attempted marriage. They had more grounds for invalidity than validity, but that one thing, her baptism, made a non-Catholic have to go through hell on earth rehashing his past.

He told me on our first date that he was divorced. He didn’t know enough about Catholicism to realize what a big deal it was going to be. He met with an annulment advocate after knowing me one month. He filed for his annulment because he knew he wanted to marry me. That spoke volumes to my family. They were against our dating too.

He began his process of conversion during that time. He is now fully Catholic, promotes NFP and Catholic family life, and is a 3rd degree Knight of Columbus (soon to be fourth.) There are those here who would say I shouldn’t have dated him because he wasn’t free to marry. I strongly disagree. He was free to marry. The tribunal just declared what was already a fact.

It is called a ‘Declaration of Nullity.’ The tribunal process is a broken format, even though it has an accurate assessment of what creates a marriage.

I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the RCC takes this into consideration. I think that the annulment process is actually more of a healing process, than a process to cause people angst, although, I’m sure waiting on the finality of everything could become frustrating, I’m sure. But, the Church in Her Infinite Wisdom, is looking to always help people and to lead one, one step closer to Christ…so, again, based on that, I would presume the Catholic Church takes all of this into consideration.

 

[Sheeniac]

… I’m sure waiting on the finality of everything could become frustrating, I’m sure. But, the Church in Her Infinite Wisdom, is looking to always help people and to lead one, one step closer to Christ…so, again, based on that, I would presume the Catholic Church takes all of this into consideration.

Indeed, but the fact is that so few people know or understand this. On other threads, I have seen some very good posters mention that it took years to understand and accept certain things the Church teaches. Acceptance is a process, not usually a light switch. The American Church leans too far to the process because she doesn’t counsel towards understanding, at least in my limited view.

When I finally came Home, I spoke with a priest for about 90 minutes before making my formal confession. We discussed things that I would confess so that I could truly reconcile with God. You would think in 90 minutes I would catch the important things, huh? One thing that truly horrified me during my actual confession was the fact that I had actively worked to turn others from God. Now, one thing I pray for is God’s help in not alienating people from God by my actions.

This is something that comes to mind in my thoughts on annulment. There’s a lot of anger and hurt in the laity about the Church, for various reasons. I know with my BF, if I were to say let’s just cut off our relationship because of the Church’s positions… that would definitely turn him against the Church. Again - understanding is a process… I work on things every week with him in terms of helping him get a deeper understanding of the Church’s teaching, what the Gospel reading meant according to what Father said in the homily and connect it to his life.

Of course, I am woefully inadequate for this task. At times I tell him: “Don’t argue with me. Don’t argue with Father. Don’t argue with the Church. When you die, you go argue it with God.” Not quite the good Christian response, huh?

So I look at all of this as a whole when I consider his annulment and our relationship. Am I conflicted? Yes, of course. But I have to hope that God is judging this in its entirety. Neither of us believes in the Internal Forum approach, and we are making progress on this issue. He’s not a perfect Catholic, nor am I. We’re both wretched sinners, and God hears from me a lot about this. Maybe that’s why Jesus said to judge not, because only God knows the interior. It’s easy to look at this and dismiss my writings as a justification. Who knows, maybe it really is. But I don’t think so. It’s all just a bit more complicated than what some people think. It’s easy to say - oh it’s about sex. Or this is what you should do. Well, I know what I should do, and I am trying to get to the right state as soon as possible with someone who has less of an appreciation for the teachings of the Church.

BTW … in my above post (and this one too), I mention anger and hurt as considerations in understanding others and how they act. Yes, it’s not rational to say ‘but that priest doens’t obey the rules, that parish is rude or corrupt, so why should I be held to high standards when no one else is…’. But emotions are not always rational, and we need to be sensitive in this. Reconciliation comes about once the emotions are dealt with properly. Reason cannot remove you from an opinion that reason didn’t bring you to to begin with…

 

[catharina]

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

Just re-read the op. Based on the Church Teaching of forbidden sexual expression outside of marriage, I guess this “exceptional thinking” could apply to priests and nuns too. Not to be gross but it reminds me of the old Bill-Clinton-exception, that is, suddenly, it is whatever you say it is, according to Bill Clinton.

 

[pnewton]

I guess this “exceptional thinking” could apply to priests and nuns too. Not to be gross but it reminds me of the old Bill-Clinton-exception, that is, suddenly, it is whatever you say it is, according to Bill Clinton.

That is a wee bit different. Does anybody here really hold to no kissing or hand-holding before marriage? I do not believe that is the Church’s teaching. Why? Because these activities are not sexual activities.

 

[jmcrae]

That is a wee bit different. Does anybody here really hold to no kissing or hand-holding before marriage? I do not believe that is the Church’s teaching. Why? Because these activities are not sexual activities.

These are pre-marriage activities, which assumes that a marriage is planned. (Or at least, not not planned.) In the case of someone who is not eligible to marry (a nun, say, or a five year old girl) would it seem appropriate for them to have a “boyfriend” and be kissing, holding hands, etc.?

 

[catharina]

That is a wee bit different. Does anybody here really hold to no kissing or hand-holding before marriage? I do not believe that is the Church’s teaching. Why? Because these activities are not sexual activities.

When both are free to marry in the Church, I’ll agree with you.

When they’re not free to marry in the Church, it’s different. One is already married.

 

[pnewton]

When both are free to marry in the Church, I’ll agree with you.

When they’re not free to marry in the Church, it’s different. One is already married.

But that was not the point you made. You said these activities were like the Bill Clinton exception, in other words sexually immoral. The OP acknowledged that all sexuality outside marriage is immoral. It is unfair to continue to argue against that. We all know it. Dating is not sex outside of marriage, and neither is holding hands. In the case of waiting for annulment, one can not simply make a kiss into sex for the convinience of arguing adultery, which is easy. It is an illogical course to keep arguing what all Catholics believe, namely that adultery is a mortal sin. If I caught my spouse kissing someone and I knew that there was nothing else, there would be many things I would hold here in the wrong for, but adultery would not be one of them.

If a married person did start to fall romantically for someone and held hands over dinner, kissed at the door, then turned away from further temptation, went back home to their spouse and never put themselves in that situation again, that would not be adultery. I do not think the grave matter would even exist for mortal sin, although if it was me, I would run to a priest, bathe in holy water, or something.

My point is that we can not exaggerate the action to make it an easier argument.

 

[whatevergirl]

Maybe everyone’s opinion of dating varies from person to person. I was ok, after realizing my husband was ‘the one,’ to kissing him, holding hands…etc…but, we didn’t get into situations that would be tempting us beyond that.

As a married woman, I wouldn’t do that with another, obviously…And, knowing what the Church teaches on the matter–I wouldn’t kiss another man, if I was only legally divorced from my husband, but my marriage wasn’t annuled. We are not ‘of’ this world, but live in it, as Jesus told His followers. So, going with that, it’s easy to be swept away with the world’s view of divorce, and that being enough. But, we must look at Church teaching, and realize that if we are not free to marry another, dating shouldn’t take place, because if nothing else, we are misleading another to see us as being ‘free.’ That’s how I see it, anyways.

 

[catharina]

But that was not the point you made. You said these activities were like the Bill Clinton exception, in other words sexually immoral. The OP acknowledged that all sexuality outside marriage is immoral. It is unfair to continue to argue against that. We all know it. Dating is not sex outside of marriage, and neither is holding hands. In the case of waiting for annulment, one can not simply make a kiss into sex for the convinience of arguing adultery, which is easy. It is an illogical course to keep arguing what all Catholics believe, namely that adultery is a mortal sin. If I caught my spouse kissing someone and I knew that there was nothing else, there would be many things I would hold here in the wrong for, but adultery would not be one of them.

If a married person did start to fall romantically for someone and held hands over dinner, kissed at the door, then turned away from further temptation, went back home to their spouse and never put themselves in that situation again, that would not be adultery. I do not think the grave matter would even exist for mortal sin, although if it was me, I would run to a priest, bathe in holy water, or something.

My point is that we can not exaggerate the action to make it an easier argument.

Whoa! Did I mention mortal sin? Nope.

My comparison was to the real point that Clinton chose to define his own version of sexual expression. In dating, kissing, while still married to another, one is defining one’s own sexual expression as something other than sexual expression. IMO.

When you’re still married, you’re still married. It’s simple.

 

[rpp]

Whoa! Did I mention mortal sin? Nope.

My comparison was to the real point that Clinton chose to define his own version of sexual expression. In dating, kissing, while still married to another, one is defining one’s own sexual expression as something other than sexual expression. IMO.

When you’re still married, you’re still married. It’s simple.

It is tough to disagree with your logic.

I am beginning to become convinced that when I dated prior to getting my annulment, I was doing something wrong.

Yet I still had my priest and my spiritual director tell me it is okay and both are quite orthodox.

And then there was Father Serpa’s posts in Ask and Apologist where he said absolutely not to date without an annulment in hand.

The only real conclusion I can draw for certain is that there has been no clear guidence from an authoritative source. So we must use well-formed prudential judgment.

As I posted earlier, I did date before I got my annulment. And I also said that I now feel that it was a mistake for me.

I am going to bring this up at my next confession. That is if my confessor survives his heart attack and heart surgery. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=246228

 

[bluerose]

I, too, asked Fr. Serpa about this back in '04. Here is that thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13681

FWIW, the relationship went south shortly afterward; casualty count on my BIL’s side: 1 adult, 3 children, all heartbroken (now recovered, thank God.) On the other side: 1 adult (seen occasionally around town, always with a different guy, always holding hands–if they’re doing anything else, we’re not seeing it) and 1 child (whose grandmother told us is getting increasingly hostile, resentful and not able to trust).

 

[agapewolf]

It is so interesting how if some simple semantic terms were defined, then this board would be at about half the posts…er something.

Someone here said they went on a date with someone where they participated in a few activities and talked, with no romantic overtures present. Is this really a date? Was it defined? I’m not asking for actual answers here, but I think that idea could just be 2 friends hanging out. I’ve gone to lunch with a happily married man before (his wife knew)… he was just being a friend to me, we work together often and play music together for church. There is a man in my parish who is divorced waiting for his annullment. I’m told he doesn’t have a lot of friends and I suggested us hanging out. I can always use more Catholic friends. This kind of “date”…a non-romantic friendship time is acceptable.

But a “date” as in dinner/romantic walk with holding hands, etc…that is intended to be a part of a marriage discernemnt is quite different.

The thing is, if you are happily married, you would not go out and hold hands and kiss another person (in a romantic sort of way…your mom, maybe a peck). Just because you are civilly divorced does not change the rules. Maybe the ex-spouse is a terrible cheat, liar, abuser, etc. That does not release you from being faithful to him or her. Maybe you are confident that your annulment will happen, but that canon law that says “all marriages that are ratified and consummated are presummed valid until proven otherwise” are for your benefit to remember your vows you took.

Kissing and holding hands are bonding activities. They are part of courtship. I would suggest to anyone beginning a courtship (single/divorced/otherwise) to avoid it for awhile to view the other as a Christian sister/brother (which is shown in song of songs when the song refers to “my sister my bride”…sister comes first- see TOTB).

 

[pnewton]

I do have to agree with pnewton and dulcissima strongly on many points here.

For me, one of the most important facts is that the process of the tribunal is broken for many converts.

I believe this is why my stance is softer than others. In case of converts, even remarriage is not subjectively sinful, much less dating. The reason I say “subjectively” is that most protestants denominations do not see sin in remarriage in all situations. Therefore, not only is there no knowledge of sin, there is often honest affirmation that the situation involves no sin.

So when such a one converts to Catholicism, they are immediately treated by the Catholic Church as if they are in mortal sin. In the case of Fr. Serpa, even people dating in this situation are in mortal sin (although I think that was a more general answer). Yet sin can not exist without at least some knowledge of the sin and mortal sin requires full knowledge.

I guess I believe the greater burden should rest on Catholics and not converts, yet the opposite is true. In the case given earlier of an outdoor wedding, there was a summary annulment based on improper form. Yet all non-Catholics are not required to have any form, so every marriage is presumed valid. Yes, I believe the Catholic system of annulments has issues that are inconsistent with basic theology in other areas. Regretably, this seems to have become a pronounced problem only in the last couple of generation, so one can not fault the Catholic Church for maintaining the moral high road.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The Pauline Privilege applies when both of the parties were non-Christian at the time they were married.

The Petrine Privilege applies when one of the parties was non-Christian at the time they were married.

I’m not where I can look it up but there also is a requirement of it being non-consumated.

 

[rpp]

I was just thinking (I know, very dangerous).

Perhaps the real problem here is that so many of us have a dulled sense of sin. Yes, including myself. And when I say m,any of us, I mean society at large.

Okay, here is my premise. (Sorry if I do not articulate this well.)

Our modern society has so screwed up marriage and divorce is so stunningly common that there are an awful lot of divorced people in their 40s or 50s out there. (Like me .)

The modern Western idea of what freedom is dulls us, as a society, as to the seriousness of the what we are doing.

With the advent of the Protestant principal of allowing an individual interpret the Bible and decide for themselves, there has been a growing focus on the “rights” of an individual and shrinking concern about the rights of society until now we have situations where some claim that in the USA it is actually minority rule (via the courts).

Add to that mix the whole idea of dating and courtship, which is a fairly new social innovation, just a few hundred years old.

To recap, inflated sense of self, poor understanding of “freedom”, news ways of meeting a spouse add up poor marriages and more divorce.

I think it is possible that we, or at least I, do not really see how bad this really is. Sure we know it is bad, but not deep in our gut. Perhaps it has dulled us in the same way that homosexuals or women who want to be priestesses, or abortion supporters have been dulled by their decisions.

Or am I just crazy? (More likely.)

 

[catharina]

I’m not where I can look it up but there also is a requirement of it being non-consumated.

No.

Not in a space to quote source though.