Husband has to get an annulment for us to become Catholic

[pnewton]

A valid marriage is a valid marriage. If a non Catholic is in a valid marriage, they are not free to contract another.

There is nothing in that scenario that the Pope could “address”.

The prohibition to Communion for Catholics is rooted ultimately that one cannot receive in a state of mortal sin, not that one cannot receive until the validity of marriage is determined. Marriage validity is not barrier to communion, but the* state of the soul.* So yes, the Holy Father can address this without contradiction. In this case, I think it needs changing, as one* cannot* commit mortal sin by following one’s well-formed conscience, just because that conscience was formed in a Christian faith outside of Catholic teaching.

If validity of the marriage was the ultimate barrier, then one could receive prior to an annulment, as the tribunal finding does not change the validity of a prior marriage one way or another.

 

[jmcrae]

The prohibition to Communion for Catholics is rooted ultimately that one cannot receive in a state of mortal sin, not that one cannot receive until the validity of marriage is determined. Marriage validity is not barrier to communion, but the* state of the soul.* So yes, the Holy Father can address this without contradiction. In this case, I think it needs changing, as one* cannot* commit mortal sin by following one’s well-formed conscience, just because that conscience was formed in a Christian faith outside of Catholic teaching.

If validity of the marriage was the ultimate barrier, then one could receive prior to an annulment, as the tribunal finding does not change the validity of a prior marriage one way or another.

The Church must have addressed this situation before, since many of the first generation Christians, along with later conversions in non-Christian countries, must have dealt with people who had more than one spouse at the same time. How did we deal with this in the past?

 

[pnewton]

The Church must have addressed this situation before, since many of the first generation Christians, along with later conversions in non-Christian countries, must have dealt with people who had more than one spouse at the same time. How did we deal with this in the past?

In such cases, usually the Petrine privilege or the Pauline privilege would apply. We have St. Paul outlining this himself, it was such a common issue.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

The prohibition to Communion for Catholics is rooted ultimately that one cannot receive in a state of mortal sin, not that one cannot receive until the validity of marriage is determined. Marriage validity is not barrier to communion, but the* state of the soul.* So yes, the Holy Father can address this without contradiction. In this case, I think it needs changing, as one* cannot* commit mortal sin by following one’s well-formed conscience, just because that conscience was formed in a Christian faith outside of Catholic teaching.

If validity of the marriage was the ultimate barrier, then one could receive prior to an annulment, as the tribunal finding does not change the validity of a prior marriage one way or another.

I have a hard time believing that they had no idea what they were getting into. I mean, it’s right there in the vows, “till death do us part.”

If a person needs to bring their marriage into the catholic church they have the annulment ministry to to assist them. It’s a cheap and easy process, the only thing it isn’t is fast for full tribunal cases. Maybe there is a need to streamline the process and bring it into the 21st century but that would mean putting more money and people towards that particular ministry. As things stand currently I think people have the time to wait and the resources are better spent elsewhere.

 

[pnewton]

I have a hard time believing that they had no idea what they were getting into. I mean, it’s right there in the vows, “till death do us part.”

Believe it or not. All the Protestants I have known consider divorcing a spouse for committing adultery, and remarrying, acceptable, and interpret this from the exception Jesus gave. Even in those situations where divorce is considered wrong (sinful), remarriage is not considered a state of sin.

Consider how the religious right embraced and supported Ronald Reagan. They never once considered him as living in sin with Nancy.

 

[dans0622]

You and your husband can become Catholic without the annulment…

Hello,

Anything is possible (so to speak) but in the normal course of events it seems odd/shortsighted/imprudent for a man or woman to be admitted into the Church while his/her status of person is up in the air.

Dan

 

[robertmidwest]

Hello,

his/her status of person is up in the air.

Dan

What do you mean status is unknown? He is civilly divorced. That is not a impediment to becoming Catholic is it? No, it is not. I don’t think it is even uncommon. There are lots of people who have gone through a civil divorce who later became Catholic.

A previous marriage without annulment would be an impediment to a Catholic marriage. Two separate issues.

Isn’t the goal to bring people to Christ through the fullness of the Church? It looks to me like there are several posts here who are very eager to downplay the possibility of entry to the Church. It gives off the air of “we don’t really want to deal with you” attitude. In the process the OP could be discouraged all together. I don’t think that is at all what Christ intended for us to do.

 

[jmcrae]

In such cases, usually the Petrine privilege or the Pauline privilege would apply. We have St. Paul outlining this himself, it was such a common issue.

That was for those who wanted to take up celibacy. What about for those who still want to be married to their second spouse?

 

[jmcrae]

What do you mean status is unknown? He is civilly divorced. That is not a impediment to becoming Catholic is it? No, it is not. I don’t think it is even uncommon. There are lots of people who have gone through a civil divorce who later became Catholic.

If he is single and understands that he can never attempt remarriage for as long as his spouse is alive, then yes, he can become Catholic without getting a Declaration of Nullity. But if he is attempting a second marriage, then in order for the current marriage to be valid, he has to ensure that the previous marriage(s) are null.

A previous marriage without annulment would be an impediment to a Catholic marriage. Two separate issues.

This is in fact his situation. In order to make his current marriage Catholic(which he must do in order to be received into the Church) he has to get Declarations of Nullity for his previous marriages.

Isn’t the goal to bring people to Christ through the fullness of the Church? It looks to me like there are several posts here who are very eager to downplay the possibility of entry to the Church. It gives off the air of “we don’t really want to deal with you” attitude. In the process the OP could be discouraged all together. I don’t think that is at all what Christ intended for us to do.

I’m sure people just want to make sure that they in fact are made able to receive the graces of Jesus Christ through His Sacraments without any impediments.

 

[jmcrae]

The prohibition to Communion for Catholics is rooted ultimately that one cannot receive in a state of mortal sin, not that one cannot receive until the validity of marriage is determined. Marriage validity is not barrier to communion, but the* state of the soul.* So yes, the Holy Father can address this without contradiction. In this case, I think it needs changing, as one* cannot* commit mortal sin by following one’s well-formed conscience, just because that conscience was formed in a Christian faith outside of Catholic teaching.

If validity of the marriage was the ultimate barrier, then one could receive prior to an annulment, as the tribunal finding does not change the validity of a prior marriage one way or another.

Actually there are all kinds of situations that prevent people from receiving the Sacraments. Mortal sin is only one of them. Being in a doubtful marriage is another one, even if it isn’t a mortal sin, per se, due to lack of knowledge.

 

[robertmidwest]

make his current marriage Catholic(which he must do in order to be received into the Church)

No he does not have to make his current civil marriage a sacramental marriage to become Catholic.

A civil marriage has no bearing on his ability to become Catholic. He can, if he has to, chose to live as brother and sister with his civil wife.

 

[jmcrae]

No he does not have to make his current civil marriage a sacramental marriage to become Catholic.

Give me a link that shows this in canon law.

A civil marriage has no bearing on his ability to become Catholic. He can, if he has to, chose to live as brother and sister with his civil wife.

He can only do that with specific permission from his pastor. He can’t just take it upon himself to do that.

 

[robertmidwest]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=999870&highlight=Annulment

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=985773&highlight=Annulment

 

[jmcrae]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=999870&highlight=Annulment

That’s an Apologist; not Canon Law, first of all, and secondly, the woman was not married a second time. If she were to think of getting married, she would have to pursue a a Declaration of Nullity, according to the Apologist.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=985773&highlight=Annulment

Again, not Canon Law, and this one shows that with them being in a second marriage, they do in fact need to seek a Declaration of Nullity in order to be considered married.

 

[pnewton]

Actually there are all kinds of situations that prevent people from receiving the Sacraments. Mortal sin is only one of them. Being in a doubtful marriage is another one, even if it isn’t a mortal sin, per se, due to lack of knowledge.

I was only thinking in terms of those things that by their nature prevent the reception of communion, no things that are strictly legalistic matters.

That was for those who wanted to take up celibacy. What about for those who still want to be married to their second spouse?

These two have nothing to do with celibacy and both allow remarriage. In fact, as I am no expert, I learned something new. The Pauline Privilege only applies when there is a remarriage. Who knew?

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/04/04/what-is-the-pauline-privilege/

 

[jmcrae]

I was only thinking in terms of those things that by their nature prevent the reception of communion, no things that are strictly legalistic matters.
These two have nothing to do with celibacy and both allow remarriage. In fact, as I am no expert, I learned something new. The Pauline Privilege only applies when there is a remarriage. Who knew?

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/04/04/what-is-the-pauline-privilege/

Okay. But the Pauline Privilege is still assuming that the person only wants to be married to one person. It also assumes that the person you no longer want to be married to is a non-Christian who is hostile to your conversion to Christianity. This is pretty rare in modern times.

What about situations where someone has, let’s say, two wives living with him at home, and both of them have children under the age of majority, and are dependent on him for their survival. (Which would be analogous to the case where someone is divorced and paying child support while being married to a second wife.)

How did the Church deal with that situation in former times?

 

[dans0622]

What do you mean status is unknown? He is civilly divorced. That is not a impediment to becoming Catholic is it? No, it is not. I don’t think it is even uncommon. There are lots of people who have gone through a civil divorce who later became Catholic.

A previous marriage without annulment would be an impediment to a Catholic marriage. Two separate issues. …

The “OP” states that she is married to a man who has already been married. He, in turn, was married to a woman who was already married. I think that makes it pretty clear that the personal status of the OP and the man is uncertain: who is married to whom as far as the Church is concerned?

“A previous marriage without annulment” is what we are dealing with, twice.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

I was only thinking in terms of those things that by their nature prevent the reception of communion, no things that are strictly legalistic matters.
These two have nothing to do with celibacy and both allow remarriage. In fact, as I am no expert, I learned something new. The Pauline Privilege only applies when there is a remarriage. Who knew?

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/04/04/what-is-the-pauline-privilege/

Not the best commentary. She gets the definition of “ratum” wrong and that makes the whole explanation a lot harder to make…and it’s harder to make sense of it, too. “Ratum” in the context of marriage law means Sacramental. It does *not *mean “celebrated with a valid marriage rite.”

The reason some marriages can be dissolved via the “Pauline Privilege” is because they were not Sacramental marriages.

Dan

 

[1ke]

How did the Church deal with that situation in former times?

Same way it does in current times:

Can. 1148 §1. When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one. The same is valid for a non-baptized woman who has several non-baptized husbands at the same time.

§2. In the cases mentioned in §1, marriage must be contracted in legitimate form after baptism has been received, and the prescripts about mixed marriages, if necessary, and other matters required by the law are to be observed.

§3. Keeping in mind the moral, social, and economic conditions of places and of persons, the local ordinary is to take care that the needs of the first wife and the others dismissed are sufficiently provided for according to the norms of justice, Christian charity, and natural equity.

 

[1ke]

Not the best commentary.

Speaking of commentary, I love your blog name. I’ll have to check it out some time soon.