How to deal with denial of annulment

[Minion_w_a_drum]

It would depend on whether anyone in the current parish is aware of the situation. If they are living as brother and sister and the priest has given permission for them to receive the Sacraments, then only those who know anything about the previous marriage could potentially be scandalized, but if the only people who know are the priest and the RCIA Catechists then it’s not really an issue.

So let me see if I have this right: A man and woman live together as brother and sister. This can be sinful to God IF people know their past. However, it can be acceptable to God IF no one in their parish know their past Is that what you are saying?

Let’s say no one knows their past and they continue to live as brother and sister and are active in their parish. Let’s say they elevate to prominent roles at the parish and people genuinely look up to them as good and outstanding people. Let’s say then that one day the x spouse of the man described in the original post hits town, starts attending the parish and blows the whistle on the 2 pillars of the parish… Now that would definitely start a scandal!!

I just don’t think the decision on whether or not it is scandalous should be based on what the parishioners do or do not know. The knowledge of the parishioners is not static, it is very fluid.

But that is just my opinion…

 

[pianistclare]

So let me see if I have this right: A man and woman live together as brother and sister. This can be sinful to God IF people know their past. However, it can be acceptable to God IF no one in their parish know their past Is that what you are saying?

Let’s say no one knows their past and they continue to live as brother and sister and are active in their parish. Let’s say they elevate to prominent roles at the parish and people genuinely look up to them as good and outstanding people. Let’s say then that one day the x spouse of the man described in the original post hits town, starts attending the parish and blows the whistle on the 2 pillars of the parish… Now that would definitely start a scandal!!

I just don’t think the decision on whether or not it is scandalous should be based on what the parishioners do or do not know. The knowledge of the parishioners is not static, it is very fluid.

But that is just my opinion…

People ae nicer than that.
We don’t peer into each other’s souls.
At least not at my parish. YMMV

 

[Minion_w_a_drum]

People ae nicer than that.
We don’t peer into each other’s souls.
At least not at my parish. YMMV

Really??? That sounds rather sanctimonious to me…
Let me ask you this, IF people are nicer than that, and IF we don’t peer into each other’s souls, then why is a potential of implied situation generally considered by the RCC as scandalous, and thus a sin?? IF people are nicer than that and IF we don’t peer into each other’s souls then should not the church do away with the whole scandal is a sin notion??

I didn’t write the rules of the church, I’m just trying to live by them.

 

[Vico]

People ae nicer than that.
We don’t peer into each other’s souls.
At least not at my parish. YMMV

It it precisely because one cannot look into another’s soul that the standard is objective sin and not subjective sin. Scandal is given to the weak not the strong, and the weak are led into sin by an example that it either actually sin or even not a sin.

 

[Minion_w_a_drum]

It it precisely because one cannot look into another’s soul that the standard is objective sin and not subjective sin. Scandal is given to the weak not the strong, and the weak are led into sin by an example that it either actually sin or even not a sin.

I do not understand your post.

 

[Vico]

I do not understand your post.

The part about giving scandal or the part about objective vs subjective sin?

 

[pianistclare]

Really??? That sounds rather sanctimonious to me…
Let me ask you this, IF people are nicer than that, and IF we don’t peer into each other’s souls, then why is a potential of implied situation generally considered by the RCC as scandalous, and thus a sin?? IF people are nicer than that and IF we don’t peer into each other’s souls then should not the church do away with the whole scandal is a sin notion??

I didn’t write the rules of the church, I’m just trying to live by them.

I’m not being sanctimonious. I didn’t say we excuse people or ignore scandal. It’s just that most of us don’t beat people about the head and face with their problems. We presume that they and they confessor and advocates have it well in hand, under control. And we don’t make a spectacle of them.
I would hate to think of a parish family pushing people to other parishes. THAT would be sanctimonious.
I try to err on the side of mercy. The priests are in charge, not “observers:”
I work in a parish. Such matters are confidential.

 

[Shellee]

Good morning my brothers and sisters,
I have had to be away for a time and as I sit back down at the computer, I am reminded of the beauty of my Catholic faith exhibited here as so many of you took the time to heartfully respond. Thank you.

My friend has been struggling with her Catholic faith for many years, mainly due to issues of perceived judgement against her by certain people in our small parish family. I am not sure she ever really understood the Catholic position on marriage in the first place. (I myself am a convert and it took many years for me to even begin to embrace the authority of the church.) Divorce and contraception have become such norms in our society today that I think many people just put these things aside. I encounter Catholics all the time who pick and choose the parts of their faith they believe in. The authority of the church has not been at the forefront of their catechesis maybe. I do understand and appreciate how seriously the church takes the sacrament of marriage.

It is my understanding that this annulment process is something her husband agreed to in support of her returning to her faith. I don’t believe he has any desire to become Catholic at this point. His former wife has never remarried. During the process there were supposed “red flags” as stated by the Diocese but of course they would discuss none of this with her as it was not her marriage being dealt with. I am not sure she will pursue anything else at this point but as someone who got to know her this year and sees the yearning in her heart, I just want to be able to support her in a way that can help her get back to truth. I will share with her all of these heartfelt answers and pray that the truth will set her free. She has been in much contact with our parish priest and I might add, we live in a small, rural community. She tends to feel much judgement and has had a difficult time even attending Mass in her home parish. I want to be a supportive, understanding friend at this point but don’t want to seem in any way to be undermining church authority. I think it will be difficult so please pray that we can continue to be strong in our faith as well as loving examples to all we encounter. God Bless each of you and again, I thank you!

 

[Shellee]

Daddygirl,
Yes, I believe that in her mind she can never be Catholic again at this point. She is married and loves her husband. I believe that her faith in the church had been shattered at one point but she was being led back to her faith. I can’t even imagine how difficult this is for her. I pray for her perseverance in the faith knowing that with God all things are possible.

 

[jmcrae]

So let me see if I have this right: A man and woman live together as brother and sister. This can be sinful to God IF people know their past. However, it can be acceptable to God IF no one in their parish know their past Is that what you are saying?

Not even close.

It’s never a sin to live as brother and sister.

It’s a sin to *let people think *you are committing adultery.

See the difference?

 

[LethalMouse]

As far as I know there are appeals processes because said rulings are not done in an infallible way.

Things that are not infallible my least favorite things they tend to be errant like the ramblings of most christians and what they give off as what the religion holds …

If it is truly annulment worthy apeal and all.

Also dont be in faux denial if it is not

 

[Vico]

I do not understand your post.

pianistclare:

People a[r]e nicer than that.
We don’t peer into each other’s souls.
At least not at my parish. YMMV

vico:

It it precisely because one cannot look into another’s soul that the standard is objective sin and not subjective sin. Scandal is given to the weak not the strong, and the weak are led into sin by an example that it either actually sin or even not a sin.

Sin that occurs is called objective sin. Objective sin is due to ignorance, or passion, or malice. Subjective Sin means what is personally sinful, which accounts for the personal responsibility, which may be reduced or eliminated by factors. See Catechism 2352 for an idea of that: “… one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”

Only God and the person know what is personal, unless it is revealed, so others do not “peer into each other’s souls”. Any public actions have to be based on objective sin not of subjective sin.

 

[jmcrae]

Ah, so she is married again. Okay, I wasn’t sure about that.

So she was ecstatic to be Catholic again…but now, because a Catholic teaching/doctrine says she must do something that goes against her own belief and heart, she equates that with God not loving her?
That is too bad, and very sad.

I guess some of her choices now include:

1–Agree with the teaching and follow it and stay Catholic, but shatter her family
2–Agree with the teaching but do not follow it, stay Catholic, but don’t go up for communion.
3–Disagree with the teaching and go back to her other religion.

Whichever she picks, I sure hope she doesn’t think God doesn’t love her just because she could not get an annulment.
But all year, as she waited for her annulment, surely she knew that it might be denied, yes?

This reminds me of a post last year that really upset me…a woman who decided to stay with her second husband and children even tho she could not get the first marriage annulled. Her priest and many here urged her to live with her new husband “like brother and sister” or to send him away, she decided she could not to do this.
I think she said that she’d continue to be Catholic and go to church, but just not go up for the Eucharist.
She could not bear to split up her happy family–a loving husband and two daughters. I think she made the right decision, tho I know many here would not agree with that.

.

The Church does not require that a man and woman who have children together should separate. She hopes that they will normalize their relationship in the Church, and that even if they can’t for some reason that they will raise their children to be faithful Catholics.

But if someone said that the Church would require them to be separated and cause their children to be orphaned, that was incorrect.

 

[Vico]

But you can’t control what each person thinks, that’s impossible. What is the woman to do, hand out leaflets at church to let the parishioners know she and her husband are not having sex? Make an announcement? Send out cards?

Scandal and sin are two different things, are they not?
Since when is “scandal” a sin? If it were, then it would be called a sin, yes?

I"m sorry to hear that everyone would be so judgmental as to assume someone is sinning when they are not…thereby forcing someone to go to a church out of town, as if they must hide or be ashamed when they have nothing to be ashamed about.
That is horrible. If this woman is made to feel that way, I feel very badly for her and others at the small mindedness around her.
I would so understand her going back to her old church if she is made to feel this way.

.

Modern Catholic Dictionary

**Scandal **

Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she forsees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block.)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II

Question 43. Scandal, Article 4. Whether scandal is a mortal sin?

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), scandal denotes a stumbling whereby a person is disposed to a spiritual downfall. Consequently passive scandal may sometimes be a venial sin, when it consists in a stumbling and nothing more; for instance, when a person is disturbed by a movement of venial sin occasioned by another’s inordinate word or deed: while sometimes it is a mortal sin, when the stumbling results in a downfall, for instance, when a person goes so far as to commit a mortal sin through another’s inordinate word or deed.

Active scandal, if it be accidental, may sometimes be a venial sin; for instance, when, through a slight indiscretion, a person either commits a venial sin, or does something that is not a sin in itself, but has some appearance of evil. On the other hand, it is sometimes a mortal sin, either because a person commits a mortal sin, or because he has such contempt for his neighbor’s spiritual welfare that he declines, for the sake of procuring it, to forego doing what he wishes to do. But in the case of active direct scandal, as when a person intends to lead another into sin, if he intends to lead him into mortal sin, his own sin will be mortal; and in like manner if he intends by committing a mortal sin himself, to lead another into venial sin; whereas if he intends, by committing a venial sin, to lead another into venial sin, there will be a venial sin of scandal.

newadvent.org/summa/3043.htm#article4

 

[jmcrae]

But you can’t control what each person thinks, that’s impossible. What is the woman to do, hand out leaflets at church to let the parishioners know she and her husband are not having sex? Make an announcement? Send out cards?

How about not discussing the subject at all?

It’s clear that Mary and Joseph never advertised their living arrangements with the neighbors, or explained what a “vow of virginity” over and over to the local gossips. Instead they allowed people to think that Jesus was Joseph’s son and that the cousins who lived with them were Jesus’ brothers and sisters. There is no sin in letting people draw their own conclusions as long as you aren’t leading others to think you are committing sin.

 

[Vico]

So this supports what I was saying, yes?
Scandal is not a sin, per se.
Especially because this woman would not be creating one on purpose or “diabolically”, and because it would not be inducing someone to do anything morally wrong.

In fact, according to the definitions above…if this woman continues to go to her church and lives with her husband, she’s not creating a “scandal” at all!!

Well, this is great news!

.

No, scandal is either venial or mortal sin as given by St. Thomas Aquinas. What the dictionary says is that the action or omission that gives the scandal can be “not necessarily sinful in itself”.

Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas

• Accidental active scandal:
• Accidental active scandal is venial when a venial sin or only appearance of evil scandalizes.
• Accidental active scandal is mortal if mortal sin scandalizes another to mortal sin, or if one will not forgo for the sake of the scandalized. (Example: drinking around an alcolholic.)
• Direct active scandal:
• Intention of a venial sin leading another into venial sin is then a venial sin.
• Intention of a mortal sin leading another into mortal or venial sin is then a mortal sin.

 

[Vico]

As per the above words, I still don’t quite see how scandal is always a sin.

But anyway…the instance we were giving–the woman going to her own church–would still not be considered a “scandal”, according to the definitions above.

.

My post was addressing this: “Scandal is not a sin, per se.”

The examples are from Summa Theologica and are always at least a venial sin. This is general teaching.

Summa Theologica: On the contrary, Scandal is “something less rightly said or done.” Now anything that lacks rectitude is a sin. Therefore scandal is always with sin.

 

[The_Wizard]

Seek out a canon lawyer! And file an appeal of the denial of annulment!

 

[jmcrae]

As per the above words, I still don’t quite see how scandal is always a sin.

But anyway…the instance we were giving–the woman going to her own church–would still not be considered a “scandal”, according to the definitions above.

.

I agree.

 

[EvelynEVF]

OP, maybe your diocese is just amazing, but only a year from start to finish is crazy fast, and I have to wonder if the denial was for lack of evidence/witnesses, something that could be remedied. If the husband, as the petitioner, is willing to look in to it, perhaps he can find something to help solve this. Sometimes it takes a more aggressive advocate.