Dating during annulment process?

[jmcrae]

He among you who is without sin, let him be the first to throw that stone.

Hey, if you can’t deal with former spouses and kids, don’t marry someone who has them.

As for me, my ex-husband is an old friend, and we remain friends even now. Most single men are put off by this, to be sure. “My woman! [grunt, grunt]” I spent part of my vacation with my ex’s mom so my little one had both grandmas with him to celebrate the wonder that is Legoland.

You might as well have stayed married.

I don’t think a man who expects his wife to be fully devoted to him alone is expecting anything he shouldn’t have, nor is he “being a Neanderthal” by wanting someone who isn’t emotionally attached to another man, as you seem to be implying.

Of course, maybe you will marry a man who is still emotionally attached to his former wife and her family, and you can have a happy two-husband, two-wife marriage.

 

[pnewton]

Had an authorized priest or deacon assisted the “outdoor” wedding without permission (and permission for an outdoor wedding is very rarely given), its celebration would have been illicit (against Church law). However, the place of the celebration would not have invalidated the marriage.

Aha. See all the great things we learn. Thanks for clarifying.

gertabelle:

This is what every child needs and deserves –

Step-parenting can be the hardest job in the world. Every child deserves a happy home. We should all be thankful for those brave few who take on not only a spouse, but the responsibility that comes to stepping into a step-parent situation.

 

[Just_Lurking]

This makes sense except that Christ Himself did not grant that people could choose to exit a marriage.

So I must tell you that the words the of the Second Person of the Trinity do not support your perspective.

It’s hard to reconcile your interpretation of Christ’s words against the Catholic Church’s theology of the Pauline privilege that the second marriage itself is what actually dissolves the first marriage. So:

A women receives approval from the bishop for remarrying under the Pauline privilege.

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The women schedules her second wedding, buys a wedding dress, sends out invitations.

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The church organist plays “Here Comes the Bride”, and the woman walks down the aisle.

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The priest asks if she takes the new man to be her lawfully wedded husband, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, etc.

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The woman replies “I do.”

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The priest asks the man if he takes the woman to be his lawfully wedded wife, etc.

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The man replies “I do.”

• Instantaneously, she is now married to her second husband, without being considered “unmarried” at any point in the process.

So given that the Catholic Church insists that the woman perform all these actions of getting married to the second man while still married to the first man, it seems extremely silly to me to insist that it is not even permitted for her to date during this!

 

[Gertabelle]

You might as well have stayed married.

I don’t think a man who expects his wife to be fully devoted to him alone is expecting anything he shouldn’t have, nor is he “being a Neanderthal” by wanting someone who isn’t emotionally attached to another man, as you seem to be** implying**.

Of course, maybe you will marry a man who is still emotionally attached to his former wife and her family, and you can have a happy two-husband, two-wife marriage. :tsktsk:

Look, if all you can do is sit there at your computer and throw insults at me, then maybe it’s time for you to log off. And fyi, I don’t “imply” anything. I am an extremely direct and down-to-earth person.

As for my being “emotionally attached” to my ex – well then, I am indeed, and I have no repentance to make for that. In fact, I am emotionally attached to my son, to my mother, to my students, to my friends, to the people who make my coffee in the morning, to the strangers sitting next to me at Mass, and to the people I will never meet who are suffering from lack of physical needs all over the world. You make it sound like this is a bad thing. I call it having a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone.

Look, I’m sleeping with my ex, or going on dates with him, or holding hands and kissing. Can’t see any other way for divorced people to behave than the one you see in the media? Your definition of “devotion” seems to be one of jealousy, one of ownership. I have no desire to be with my ex, nor does he have this desire towards me. But I see no conflict in caring about his well-being and praying for his conversion and encouraging him in creating his career.

True love does not come from a place of scarcity, in which there is very little of it, and so it must be horded and retained, and all be given to one person only. That is the world’s version of “love.” But God’s love is infinite, and if I love my ex, my son, my mom, my students, my neighbors, strangers, etc. with GOD’S love, and in God’s intended actions (state of life, relationship, etc.), then there are never enough people to love!

Your words create an image in my mind of a world that just seems very small. When I do marry, it will be expansive, a witness to the infinite love, mercy, and grace of God. For now, my life is also that – a witness to the infinite love, mercy, and grace of God. How cool is that! It’s all about grace, because I certainly don’t deserve to be a witness to anything that has to do with God.

And as for your comment that we might as well have stayed married – how could you possibly imagine that you know the hearts and minds, let alone the circumstances of the “marriage”, of these two total strangers?! It is not your place to judge, dear one.

God’s love for us, and His call to us is nothing short of ridiculous! And in the world’s eyes, the relationships I and my ex have created are insane, impossible, unthinkable. But what is the Cross of Christ, if not insane, impossible, unthinkable?

I am a chaste, single, Catholic woman and the mother to a precious little boy. Please don’t ever imply otherwise. It would be completely unChristian. :tsktsk:

Gertie

 

[catharina]

You might as well have stayed married.

I don’t think a man who expects his wife to be fully devoted to him alone is expecting anything he shouldn’t have, nor is he “being a Neanderthal” by wanting someone who isn’t emotionally attached to another man, as you seem to be implying.

Of course, maybe you will marry a man who is still emotionally attached to his former wife and her family, and you can have a happy two-husband, two-wife marriage.

Without knowing the circumstances, still I’ll say that when a child is touched by a parental divorce, then the parents (and all in-laws) are truly protecting the child’s interests when the warmth of family connections are preserved among all. It’s tough to do but it can be done.

Any “new spouse” who can’t recognize the sacrifice and benefits of such alliance because of a “Me first” attitude that really says “Me first and only me” is probably not able to be the best kind of step-parent - and therefore not the best spouse in such circumstances.

 

[catharina]

It’s hard to reconcile your interpretation of Christ’s words against the Catholic Church’s theology of the Pauline privilege that the second marriage itself is what actually dissolves the first marriage. So:

A women receives approval from the bishop for remarrying under the Pauline privilege.

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The women schedules her second wedding, buys a wedding dress, sends out invitations.

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The church organist plays “Here Comes the Bride”, and the woman walks down the aisle.

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The priest asks if she takes the new man to be her lawfully wedded husband, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, etc.

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The woman replies “I do.”

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The priest asks the man if he takes the woman to be his lawfully wedded wife, etc.

• She is still juridically married to her first husband.

The man replies “I do.”

• Instantaneously, she is now married to her second husband, without being considered “unmarried” at any point in the process.

So given that the Catholic Church insists that the woman perform all these actions of getting married to the second man while still married to the first man, it seems extremely silly to me to insist that it is not even permitted for her to date during this!

What are you saying? I haven’t a clue.

 

[pnewton]

Any “new spouse” who can’t recognize the sacrifice and benefits of such alliance because of a “Me first” attitude that really says “Me first and only me” is probably not able to be the best kind of step-parent - and therefore not the best spouse in such circumstances.

Yes, a selfish attitude must not prevail, but the prime importance on the marriage first is essential. If a person with a child or children can not put a new spouse first, they should not marry. It is only be having the strength of a solid sacramental marriage that the children can best be raised, both by the love of both “parents” and by living in the presence that a good example of Christian matrimony brings. Again, not from selfishness, but by the Godly order of marriage does this need to happen.

 

[catharina]

Yes, a selfish attitude must not prevail, but the prime importance on the marriage first is essential. If a person with a child or children can not put a new spouse first, they should not marry. It is only be having the strength of a solid sacramental marriage that the children can best be raised, both by the love of both “parents” and by living in the presence that a good example of Christian matrimony brings. Again, not from selfishness, but by the Godly order of marriage does this need to happen.

I quite agree that if an adult is unwilling to act for the benefit of of meeting the needs of children, then that adult should not marry someone with children. Why would you assume that setting aside the very real needs of children is a priority in establishing a healthy and holy spousal relationship? That seems to be your position. I have to guess that you don’t have children because when one does, then it’s an automatic action that one considers the needs of children before one’s own needs - before one considers oneself. In a Sacramental marriage, it’s a given that one will attend to children in the best ways possible.

 

[wina]

All,

Sorry if I haven’t read all threads but it’s very interesting subject which I want to learn and ask more about it any advised will be accepted

Here the story:

There’s a couple who have been dating or even getting more serious about their relationship. They both are catholics but the man was divorced civilly and got married at the catholic church before. He didn’t understand any of about annulments, etc about what catholic teaching about marriage. His previous marriage at the church when he was very young and because of his ex-wife parents asked them to get married at the church.Make the story short, they divorced civilly and never applied any annulment because of what I told before. Until the man met one woman who then they fell in love each other and finally get more serious with their relationship. The man proposed her. Well, the woman knows about annulment although doesn’t understand exactly about the teaching. When she met with the man, she has known that they can’t marry at the church. But she thought that as long as their love is sincere and asked God to guide them, then everything will be okay. And she thought that the law is made by human and it might be changed too. And She thought that God is beyond our understanding so God may approve their relationship. To make it short, finally they are enggaged. But suddenly, the woman seem aware about it and try to learn more and she finally understands that the annulment is very important. She told the man as much as what she knows, and asked him to talk to the priest. And he talked and plan to get an annulment. Meanwhile they still keep in touch a dating persons.So,in this situation, are they wrong?? should they just ignore their relationship and wait until annulment?? And can you understand what will they be if the annulment was refused?? But they both give it in God’s hand, they pray hard and they just want to put God’s will in their relationship. Honestly, the man has grown his catholic faith through his relationship with this woman.
I just want you all to know that not many catholics know exactly what the catholic church teaching about it. And we can’t judge other without knowing anything what they have been through.
God bless

 

[Just_Lurking]

What are you saying? I haven’t a clue.

I am arguing against the position that there is one set of rules (i.e., no dating, etc.) that applies to all married persons, regardless of the actual circumstances of their marriage. I am arguing in favor of the position that given the appropriate situation, it is acceptable for a person to date someone while still being juridically married to someone else.

 

[Gertabelle]

Look, I’m sleeping with my ex, or going on dates with him, or holding hands and kissing. :bigyikes:

Unfortunately, I cannot go back and edit at this point. I edited so much as I was writing – this sentence originally said “It’s not as if I’m sleeping…” When I deleted the “It’s not as if” I failed to include that little word “not.”

Well, it’s good for a good laugh!

 

[dulcissima]

I quite agree that if an adult is unwilling to act for the benefit of of meeting the needs of children, then that adult should not marry someone with children. Why would you assume that setting aside the very real needs of children is a priority in establishing a healthy and holy spousal relationship? That seems to be your position. I have to guess that you don’t have children because when one does, then it’s an automatic action that one considers the needs of children before one’s own needs - before one considers oneself. In a Sacramental marriage, it’s a given that one will attend to children in the best ways possible.

I don’t think that he is saying that the needs of the children should be set aside. I think that what he is saying, which is a belief that I strongly hold, is that it is the relationship between the husband and wife comes first. That is the proper order of things. It is the strength of that relationship that is to the benefit of the children. The love and support that a husband and wife give to each other enables them to be better parents.

It does get trickier when you are talking about marrying again, step-parenting, and blended families. I would only choose to marry someone who shared my beliefs and values, who I could trust to look out for the best interest of my kids. That being said, if I felt I found someone like that, when I got married, I would consider the relationship with my husband to be the primary relationship. My kids will grow up and be on their own someday (for some of them, this day is not too far off). My husband and I would be together long after the kids are out of the house though.

There’s a reason that it is supposed to be marriage first and then children. The relationship between the husband and the wife is at the heart of it all. This needs to be remembered even in step-parent situations I believe.

 

[Gertabelle]

There’s a reason that it is supposed to be marriage first and then children. The relationship between the husband and the wife is at the heart of it all. This needs to be remembered even in step-parent situations I believe.

I totally agree with this set of priorities, with God in the primary spot, of course.

But I’m guessing most of you would agree that the needs of the marriage (between husband and wife) and the needs of the children are not mutually exclusive. That is, what is needed for the couple’s growth and relationship with God, may also be what is needed for the children.

The couple needs, for example, to grow in trust and forgiveness. The children need to see this example in their parents, sometimes being on the giving/receiving end of this trust and forgiveness.

The couple needs to grow as a living witness to the fidelity and love of God. They can do this through putting their love into generous action for the benefit of others (“benefit” being both spiritual and physical). The children need to be the beneficiaries of this love, and to learn how to love in this same way.

The couple needs, for another example, to spend time alone on a regular basis. The children need this example of loving and committed parents. The nice thing about blended families, at least in my case, is that we have a biological dad who can act as a babysitter for these times.

My point, I guess, is that God is first, the marriage is second, and the children third. But many, many times these three go hand in hand in hand.

Gertie

 

[pnewton]

I That seems to be your position. I have to guess that you don’t have children because when one does, then it’s an automatic action that one considers the needs of children before one’s own needs - .

Yeah, what they said. Yes, one’s own needs must be secondary. It is not with the children that we become one flesh, rather with our spouse, whom we are to love as Christ loves the Church. I believe that child-centered family teaches children that the world revolves around them. On the other hand, for a child to know their parents love each other provides the greatest comfort you can afford a child. While my needs come last, the child must know that mommy and daddy are putting each other first for the sake of providing a loving home. Not only are the needs not mutually exclusive, they are mutually benefitial. I think particularly in a mixed marriage, this becomes crucial, lest the kids divide parent and step-parent.

Yes, I have raised and am raising kids.

 

[SarahR]

–detour

Here is my advice: never date anyone who has a former spouse and children. Even with a Declaration of Nullity, you are still marrying the former spouse and former kids, right along with your intended.

So you have an opinion. Maybe add a little dose of Charity to that opinion of yours. If it is God’s will for someone who has children and a decree of nullity to enter into a sacramental marriage, then He can provide rich graces and abundant fruits, far beyond our little peanut brains and fickle emotions can comprehend. And if it’s God’s will for someone to remain a chaste single parent for the rest of their lives, then He provides for that, too.
How about, never marry someone who has a meddling mother. Never marry someone who was abused as a child. Never marry someone who has a genetic predisposition to developing Alzheimer’s. Never marry someone who has had sex before marriage. ((I don’t believe these maxims, just using them as examples))
God’s ways are not our ways.

—end of detour

 

[dulcissima]

My point, I guess, is that God is first, the marriage is second, and the children third. But many, many times these three go hand in hand in hand.

Gertie

exactly

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well my daughter is going through the very beginning of a divorce.

Her husband started hitting bars after work, without her knowledge, and he eventually ended up in an affair with a woman who he met at the bar. He up and left, abandoning my daughter and her two children. She did everything she could to get her husband to come back, but he has refused and has stop providing support for her and the children. My daughter was a stay at home mom, so has no income, other than her husbands.

So, she’s going to be speaking with a lawyer this week.

Now it will take some time before the civil divorce is settled. Filing for a civil divorce is necessary for the children. Without a divorce settlement, he could just move away and never send a time to support the children.

Technically, the Church will not recognize the divorce, but that does not mean she is married, in the sacramental sense. Even though there was a marriage at the beginning, for circumstances beyond her control, the marriage no longer exists.

I doubt she’ll go for an annulment, until she has support for the kids settled. This could take a year or more, from what I understand.

An annulment would take a year or more after that. If some point between now and then, she meets some one, is she, a women of only 33 years of age, to say no to a relationship?

I no the answer here is going to be yes, she has to say no to any relationship with another man, until she gets an annulment.

In my mind, this makes no sense whatsoever.

Any way, my wife and myself are heart-sick over this. We always thought they had a solid marriage, and so did my daughter, until he left.

Jim

 

[jmcrae]

It doesn’t mean that she can’t go out with friends, or that she can’t make new friends. But she should not consider herself free to marry until the Tribunal assures her that she is.

I know it’s difficult to wait, but the heartbreak and sorrow will be even worse, if she marries without a Declaration of Nullity and then tries to fix her situation later on.

 

[SarahR]

JimR–
I sent a PM to you.
Blessings.

 

[catharina]

You might as well have stayed married.

I don’t think a man who expects his wife to be fully devoted to him alone is expecting anything he shouldn’t have, nor is he “being a Neanderthal” by wanting someone who isn’t emotionally attached to another man, as you seem to be implying.

Of course, maybe you will marry a man who is still emotionally attached to his former wife and her family, and you can have a happy two-husband, two-wife marriage.

Here is the post that seems offensive (incredibly offensive, in fact). I easily and fully agree that Sacramental marriage calls for a primary commitment between spouse first to God and then to each others. As another poster mentioned, it gets tricky when it comes to step-children - actually well beyond tricky, it calls for self-sacrifice that might be unknown and/or unwanted by a spouse who has been single and who has no children. Fo any who want no step-children, good. Avoid this situation like the plague - for the sake of the children and both spouses.

To state so smoothly, “You might as well have stayed married.” and “maybe you will marry a man who is still emotionally attached to his former wife and her family, and you can have a happy two-husband, two-wife marriage” is not a point for amusement or winks/