I am beginning to doubt the Church's decree of nullity

[Phemie]

Thank you for your affirmations.

What makes it a bit hard to rub off, however, is that I was referred to Edward Peters as the go-to guy for Canonical Law, and I quote him here:

“Joining a protestant denomination and actively participating in it, on the other hand, will probably be held to qualify as a formal act of defection. If so, you would not have been bound to observe catholic form at the time of your wedding” (100 Answers to Your Questions on Annulments, Page 144, Edward Peters, 1997).

But Ed Peters’ book was written 7 years BEFORE the Vatican clarified what was formal defection and in that 2006 document ***“ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA” ***from the PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS we read:

1. It is required, moreover, that the act be manifested by the interested party in written form, before the competent authority of the Catholic Church: the Ordinary or proper pastor, who is uniquely qualified to make the judgment concerning the existence or non-existence of the act of the will as described above in n. 2.

 

[angell1]

I was baptized as an infant and raised in the Catholic Church. At 14 I was told I could no longer receive the Sacraments because I became pregnant. I have been married and widowed three times, I have been a member of a Pentecostal Church, of a RLDS Church and an Assembly of God Church. In 2005 I reverted to the Catholic Church and was informed at that time that in the church’s eyes I have never been married. I have been baptized four times but the only one necessary was the first, once a Catholic always a Catholic. I thank God for calling me home!

i’m sorry that this happened to you. whoever told you that was greatly misinformed. yes, sex before marriage is a sin but if you repented and confessed, theere was no need to refuse you the sacraments. being pregnant was not the sin, only the consequence.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

But Ed Peters’ book was written 7 years BEFORE the Vatican clarified what was formal defection and in that 2006 document ***“ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA” ***from the PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS we read:

Ok thank you for this. I can see that I did not “formally” renounce the faith.

Now, how should we respond if someone says that what was in your heart is just as valid as the formal paperwork, as in lusting another woman is adultery already? Perhaps there is a way to articulate a response.

 

[Corki]

Ok thank you for this. I can see that I did not “formally” renounce the faith.

Now, how should we respond if someone says that what was in your heart is just as valid as the formal paperwork, as in lusting another woman is adultery already? Perhaps there is a way to articulate a response.

This is a disciplinary matter in Church law. What is “in your heart” may have made it wrong for you to abandon the practice of your faith but it doesn’t change the requirements of a formal defection.

Don’t misunderstand, it is gravely wrong to abandon your faith and this should all be dealt with in Confession if it wasn’t already when you returned to the faith. But it doesn’t change the facts of your attempted marriage and the decision of the Church regarding lack of form.

 

[felsguy]

Now, how should we respond if someone says that what was in your heart is just as valid as the formal paperwork, as in lusting another woman is adultery already? Perhaps there is a way to articulate a response.

You might try one of the following:

1. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall
   be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
2. “That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. I believe otherwise.”
3. “MYOB”

 

[God_Seeker_1]

If what everyone is saying is true, and that it is indeed true that I was born within the period where a formal defection from the catholic church would remove the obligation to observe the canonical form, and that since I did not “sign some papers” I was still obliged to follow the canonical form, then the only difference between me and someone else who is banned from remarriage is a “technicality”, a motioning of the hands, and a disregard for what is “in the heart” of man.

This does not really make me feel like I am dealing very honestly with God. Simply saying “The Church has the authority, and that’s that”, does not satisfy the intellectual problem.

 

[John_Lazarus]

Do you believe, then, that as long as you repent of sin “in your heart”, you don’t formally need to go to confession and be absolved by a priest? That it’s just “a technicality, a motioning of the hands”?

You are saying that you doubt your decree of nullity, because you think it’s been decreed due to a technicality in Canon Law. Yet, you yourself are arguing that through a different technicality you are still married, through the small exception that was made in '83, which you are trying to bend out of shape to force it to apply to you.

Look: per Canon Law, before 1983, you were not married. Per Canon Law after 2009, you were not married. Per Canon Law between those two years, you would have had an exception through some very strict circumstances which you did not fulfill, so you were not married.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If what everyone is saying is true, and that it is indeed true that I was born within the period where a formal defection from the catholic church would remove the obligation to observe the canonical form, and that since I did not “sign some papers” I was still obliged to follow the canonical form, then the only difference between me and someone else who is banned from remarriage is a “technicality”, a motioning of the hands, and a disregard for what is “in the heart” of man.

This does not really make me feel like I am dealing very honestly with God. Simply saying “The Church has the authority, and that’s that”, does not satisfy the intellectual problem.

I think you are being scrupulous. However, your source of information on this should only be the local diocesean authority on canon law or perhaps someone in the marriage tribunal. They are the only authority for your situation. You should seek confirmation of your condition from them and accept it as the voice of God, which it is because they get their authority from the local bishop, who speaks for God for those in his diocease. You should then be at peace based on their confirmation.

Linus2nd

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Do you believe, then, that as long as you repent of sin “in your heart”, you don’t formally need to go to confession and be absolved by a priest? That it’s just “a technicality, a motioning of the hands”?

You are saying that you doubt your decree of nullity, because you think it’s been decreed due to a technicality in Canon Law. Yet, you yourself are arguing that through a different technicality you are still married, through the small exception that was made in '83, which you are trying to bend out of shape to force it to apply to you.

Look: per Canon Law, before 1983, you were not married. Per Canon Law after 2009, you were not married. Per Canon Law between those two years, you would have had an exception through some very strict circumstances which you did not fulfill, so you were not married.

Hey that really helped.

For since before 1983, all baptized catholics were obliged to the canonical form of marriage. And then after 2009, all baptized catholics are still obliged to the canonical form. The difference between 1983 and 2009 is a small exception, which itself is a technicality on top of what is already canon law (before 83 and after 2009) which was made to require physical paperwork and such.

I am just thinking with regard to the heart in the situation. Had I been given the chance to renounce my catholic faith, I probably would have, God forgive me. I would try to compare this to a baptism of desire. Since Catholics are willing to grant salvation to those who “desire” baptism, or “desire” confession, or any of the other sacraments, why would we deny that a person who “desires” to renounce the Catholic faith as fulfilling the technical material in the process?

I mean, I’ve even read that we Catholics are allowing the possibility of salvation for those who are explicitly against the teaching of the Church out of invinsible ignorance, but who “would” accept the gospel had they been given the chance. Should not the reverse be true? If someone is invinsibly ignorant of the physical paperwork to renounce the Catholic faith, but who nevertheless “WOULD” renounce the faith on paper had it been given the chance, should this not be considered the same in merit? In heart?

 

[dans0622]

…why would we deny that a person who “desires” to renounce the Catholic faith as fulfilling the technical material in the process… … If someone is invinsibly ignorant of the physical paperwork to renounce the Catholic faith, but who nevertheless “WOULD” renounce the faith on paper had it been given the chance, should this not be considered the same in merit? In heart?

Hello,

I see what you are saying and would respond:

A legal system cannot depend on what *would *have happened or what is only in the heart. Desires have to be externally manifested and the legal authorities (whether ecclesiastical or civil) have the power to determine how a person has to act in order for certain legal effects to come into being. A person’s desire for Catholic baptism, for example, means nothing as far as being bound to observe the law of the Catholic Church. In order to be bound to the laws of the Church, a person has to be baptized in the Church or received into her in an appropriate, formalized manner. In order to have been exempted from the requirements of canonical form, a person had to defect from the Church in a formal manner. Does desire have something to do with salvation or merit? Sure. That’s a different subject altogether.

In general, the law of the Church has attempted to make and/or maintain a clear distinction between the external and internal forums. What you speak of is part of the internal forum. All that matters as far as who is bound to the canonical form of marriage is part of the external forum. It has to be that way, it seems to me.

Dan

 

[1ke]

If what everyone is saying is true, and that it is indeed true that I was born within the period where a formal defection from the catholic church would remove the obligation to observe the canonical form, and that since I did not “sign some papers” I was still obliged to follow the canonical form, then the only difference between me and someone else who is banned from remarriage is a “technicality”, a motioning of the hands, and a disregard for what is “in the heart” of man.

This does not really make me feel like I am dealing very honestly with God. Simply saying “The Church has the authority, and that’s that”, does not satisfy the intellectual problem.

If you decided you hated the US and everything it stood for, moved to Romania and told everyone you knew that you were no longer a US citizen that would not make it so. The only way to renounce US citizenship is to follow this process. If you don’t follow that process, you are still a US citizen no matter what is “in your heart”.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

But, as in the Old Testament, the disposition of the heart determine’s whether one is truly obedient to God or disobedient to God. Therefore, someone could obey the legal stipulations of the sacrifices, or the feast days, or the sabbaths, but in their heart they are far from God. Someone could love God truly, as Abraham, and not engage with so many outward forms of worship.

In my case, since I attempted a union in 2005, and since my heart was in an anti-catholic disposition, how could we justify a verdict which says that I was not obliged by the canonical form of the sacrament?

It would be like if an Israelite truly desires to love God in giving sacrifice, but didn’t make it to the temple before he was kidnapped, and then saying he didn’t love or worship God. God sees the heart.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Again, the local Bishop is your only authority in such matters or whoever he appoints as his canon lawyer. Arrange a meeting with this person if you are still troubled. None of us here are qualified to " absolve " you of anything or to give you definitive advice. Only the local Bishop has that kind of power and authority, that is one reason we have Bishops. Authors of books should keep their traps shut, they are not any more qualified than we are. Now, do as I said and stop worrying.

Linus2nd

 

[JReducation]

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to throw this out before the wisdom of the forum.

I was born and raised Catholic (baptized, received holy communion), and when I was at the age of 14 or 15 I just stopped believing in God. I became an agnostic/atheist. When I turned 18, I came across a baptist at my college and he shared the gospel with me, I soon thereafter had a radical conversion experience. I then got married to a girl in the baptist church, who was not a catholic as far as I can remember, but then got civilly divorced from her a few years later.

Since then, I’ve come back to the Catholic Church. The tribunal declared my form marriage annulled because of a lack of form. Since I was baptized Catholic, I was bound by the canonical form of the sacrament, which I did not observe. And just the other day my wife (someone different than my former “spouse” in the baptist church) received the sacrament of marriage in the Church.

However, today I picked up a book, Copyright 1997 called 100 answers to your questions on annullments by Edward N. Peters, a person well studied under Canon Law, and he said in the book that in the above scenario, if I became a baptist, then I formally renounced my catholic faith, and therefore I was not bound to observe the canonical form of the sacrament, and my former union in the baptist church is likely a valid union. He cited Canon 1117.

I told the Tribunal over and over again that I had become a protestant baptist and spent many years there. But they still insisted that the former attempted union in the baptist church was null.

What am I to do?

Relax. These decrees are not done casually, contrary to what some naysayers claim. Probably half of the marriages in the USA are invalid for one reason or another, most notably the lack of intent to have as many children as God gives or the openness to divorce if all does not go as planned. But that’s a story for another day.

For today, suffice it to say that your first attempted marriage did not meet all of the conditions necessary for validity of which form is an important condition.

No you do not fall into the category described by canon law of those who defect from the Church. That particular phrase was in place for people who formally, with paperwork etc, renounced their Catholic faith. Wandering off to a Protestant community does not constitute a formal defection. Think of it like moving to another country does not constitute a surrender of your citizenship, even when you become a permanent resident of that country.

If this is really driving you crazy, sit down with someone at the tribunal and have them explain it to you and don’t leave until you understand the explanation.

 

[SerraSemper]

Your big wedding day arrived. You and your fiance marched up the aisle to the altar. You stared at each other. Then you returned to the pews. Did you get married? Since both of you desired in your hearts to get married, nothing else was needed. No vows. No clergyman to witness those vows and bless the couple. No witnesses. Actually, no need for going to the Church or altar. Enough to just silently look at a member of the opposite sex and fall in love. If they also silently fall in love with you then you are married!

What’s wrong with these hypothetical scenarios? They disrespect the fact that we are human- composites of body and soul. If we were just spirit, it would be enough to convey thoughts and agreements with no words, no papers, no body language. We’re not spirits. Jesus Himself used signs. He used words to communicate His message. He instituted Sacraments (signs). When people get married, signs are used so that the two people involved know that they are getting married to each other specifically and the community know that these two humans are getting married. God did not design people to be telepaths. Therefore it is not sufficient for most things to have a “desire in the heart” to result in legal effects. Otherwise random strangers in the mall admiring each other would be married without knowing it. A person cannot** formally defect **from the Faith without knowing it and without the Church knowing it. This can’t be done without signs! In the case of formal defection, the Church requires certain external proofs. A mere desire of the heart does not suffice.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Thanks everyone

The last few comments were extremely helpful. I will have a talk with the Canon Law advisor that I spoke with about my case, but I think I pretty much understand now. The Church has a number of visible institutional methods which are inherent to her authority, and these must be respected.