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

[God_Seeker_1]

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?

 

[angell1]

i’m no theologian, but i didn’t think you stopped becoming catholic even you leave, you are sitll a baptized child of God.

i’m not completely sure though. sorry

 

[Corki]

For a short period of time,canon law recognized a formal renunciation of the faith. If a person made this renunciation he/she was not bound to canonical form if he/she sought to marry. It was more formal than just joining another religion. Different Bishops had policies or even forms that were filed if one wanted to renounce his/her Catholic faith.

HOWEVER, this is not the case anymore. There is no longer a process to renounce the faith formally nor a process that excuses a Baptized Catholic from the duty to recognize proper form when seeking marriage.

Canon 1117 used to read:

Can. 1117 The form prescribed above is to be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it **and has not by a formal act defected from it, **without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1127 §2.

In 2009, the bolded words were removed.

Be at peace. There is no inconsistency in the decision you received from the Tribunal.

 

[felsguy]

I suggest you humbly accept the decision of the Tribunal and not try to second guess it or dwell on it obsessively. Once you start down that road, you’re likely to start questioning the validity of all kinds of actions and intentions. Official decisions of the Church trump contary opinions you can find in books or on the internet regardless of how learned their author may be.

 

[porthos11]

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?

Nothing. The tribunal has looked at all circumstances and has deemed your former marriage null. You are to accept that you are free to marry. Armchair canon law, even with a book from someone as esteemed as Dr. Peters, does not trump an official ruling from the Church. You should be at peace with this.

 

[mdgspencer]

If I was you, I would trust the Church, not some individual, even someone with a book. Actually, I have published several books and don’t consider myself infallible when it comes to their areas of concern…
My own former marriage was annulled, and I have heard various people question the validity of the annulment process as it has been carried out. This obviously could be very troubling to me if I didn’t trust the judgment of the Church. But I consider it better to trust the Church when it comes to my own annulment, not some individual’s opinions.
Actually, I have to say, some of the things you say are a bit odd. You say you don’t remember if your first wife had ever been a Catholic or not. I wonder how this could be.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

Don’t worry, you are fine. You did everything you could to make your situation absolutely clear. You followed all the rules of the tribunal so you can receive the sacraments in good faith. Don’t torture yourself with doubts. And stop reading books that trouble you. But if you need confirmation go to the chancery and talk to their cannon law expert.

Linus2nd

 

[1ke]

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 am sorry that you read something that troubles you. Yes, between 1983 and 2009 there was a process for “formal defection” which did release Catholics from the Catholic form of marriage.

However, formal defection is not simply leaving the Church nor joining another. Formal defection is something very specific and defined in Church law and it would have involved you writing to your bishop requesting to formally defect, him actually accepting the formal defection AND the defection being noted in your baptismal records.

No worries, you did not formally defect by simply joining the Baptist church. The term for that would be “notorious defection” and it does not release one from the marriage laws of the Church.

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?

You need do nothing. Your decree based on lack of form is valid.

 

[Brother_Andre]

My dear friend - have no doubt. Relax! The diocesan tribunal process is a serious one. It is infused with prayer. Only the most serious and discrete people are allowed to work (or volunteer) in this office. And all of them view it as a ministry, a true apostolate. There is a REQUIRED appeal process…so your case was double checked at a national (in Canada) or regional (USA) level. Ed Peters is a brilliant canon lawyer. Lawyer.

I am a university professor and student of Canon Law. I volunteer at my diocesan tribunal…I can assure you, your file, and the ruling you received, were subject to serious, prayerful scrutiny and you can trust that the decision rendered was utterly trustworthy. We are not talking about the realm of civil or criminal law here… traffic tickets and corporate law suits. This is Canon Law, which evolves from scripture and 2000 years of church teaching and acquired experience. It is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

Trust your Bishop.

 

[KrazyKat]

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!

 

[Brother_Andre]

I pray for the repose of the soul of the dumb priest who gave you that nutty advice when you were 14.

You are a great lady, I can tell.

God bless.

 

[1ke]

My dear friend - have no doubt. Relax! The diocesan tribunal process is a serious one. It is infused with prayer. Only the most serious and discrete people are allowed to work (or volunteer) in this office. And all of them view it as a ministry, a true apostolate. There is a REQUIRED appeal process…so your case was double checked at a national (in Canada) or regional (USA) level. Ed Peters is a brilliant canon lawyer. Lawyer.

I am a university professor and student of Canon Law. I volunteer at my diocesan tribunal…I can assure you, your file, and the ruling you received, were subject to serious, prayerful scrutiny and you can trust that the decision rendered was utterly trustworthy. We are not talking about the realm of civil or criminal law here… traffic tickets and corporate law suits. This is Canon Law, which evolves from scripture and 2000 years of church teaching and acquired experience. It is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

Trust your Bishop.

Lack of form is not a tribunal nullity case, nor does it go through two tribunals. It is an administrative paperwork case only. In the US and Canada, it goes to the tribunal for processing. In Europe and other countries it is handled at the parish level by the pastor.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Hey thanks everyone,

I am getting even more scared now because my first “marriage” was in 2005, right in the midst of that time period where there was enforced no obligation to the canonical form, and so it would be considered a valid marriage. Or am I getting this wrong?

As to stance at the point, I didn’t have an articulated anti-catholic view, but I just thought everything else besides the baptist church (which ended up being a bit cultic) and churches like it were where I could find salvation. But I remember from the very start reflecting how different my experience was in the baptist church versus the catholic church, and thereby implicitly renouncing the catholic church, without an articulated fashion.

 

[Corki]

Don’t worry. The diocese would have looked into all this already when they looked at your marriage for lack of form.

It sounds like you “renounced” the Catholic Church not by an act of formal defection but by associating with a Baptist Church. That is not a formal defection. You would definitely know it if you formally defected. There’s paperwork involved. If there was any doubt, you would have been asked for more information when your prior marriage was being investigated for lack of form.

 

[1ke]

I am getting even more scared now because my first “marriage” was in 2005, right in the midst of that time period where there was enforced no obligation to the canonical form, and so it would be considered a valid marriage. Or am I getting this wrong?

Yes, you are getting it wrong. Please put this behind you and stop worrying. Your pastor knew what he was doing.

Formal defection would have required formal steps any time 1983-2009.

implicitly renouncing the catholic church, without an articulated fashion.

Which is NOT formal defection.

 

[Phemie]

Hey thanks everyone,

I am getting even more scared now because my first “marriage” was in 2005, right in the midst of that time period where there was enforced no obligation to the canonical form, and so it would be considered a valid marriage. Or am I getting this wrong?

As to stance at the point, I didn’t have an articulated anti-catholic view, but I just thought everything else besides the baptist church (which ended up being a bit cultic) and churches like it were where I could find salvation. But I remember from the very start reflecting how different my experience was in the baptist church versus the catholic church, and thereby implicitly renouncing the catholic church, without an articulated fashion.

When you left the Catholic Church, did you contact your bishop and tell him you were leaving and wanted your baptismal record annotated with that fact? Did you tell a priest? If you didn’t and there was nothing on your certificate of baptism, which you would have had to provide, then you never formally defected from the Church. Relax.

 

[1ke]

right in the midst of that time period where there was enforced no obligation to the canonical form

This is the part you have wrong. You are not correct. Form was required for **any **Catholic from 1983-2009 unless they formally defected-- which you did NOT do if you did not write your bishop receive a reply from him and have an annotation in your baptismal record.

 

[felsguy]

Hey thanks everyone,

I am getting even more scared now because my first “marriage” was in 2005, right in the midst of that time period where there was enforced no obligation to the canonical form, and so it would be considered a valid marriage. Or am I getting this wrong?

Dear friend

What you are “getting wrong” is not heeding the consistent (good) advice that you have gotten in so many of the posts above, namely, stop obsessing over this, put your complete trust in the official decision of the Church, and move on. Marriage tribunals act very carefully and are certainly up to date on the current canon law of the time.

You know the familiar saying “he who treats himself has a fool for a doctor”? Well, I would say the same goes for someone who trys to act as their own canon lawyer or marriage tribunal official. :yup:

 

[God_Seeker_1]

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).

 

[Corki]

As much as I respect and admire Mr. Peters, it is wrong of you to take his word for this over that of your own diocese. Your pastor and the diocese looked at the specifics of YOUR marriage and YOUR relationship with the Church. Mr. Peters (probably) doesn’t know you and is writing in generalities. In fact, he uses the word “probably” which indicates that circumstances will vary the result. In YOUR circumstance, there was not a question of formal defection. As noted before, if this was even a question, you would have been asked to provide more information. Stop second guessing. There is no good that can come from this.