I need some help clearing up annulments, marriages, and it's all complicated

[jimsnew]

No, I haven’t talked to anyone at the tribunal. I didn’t know if that was allowed, or who to call, or who to talk to. I guess I feel pretty helpless at the moment.

 

[CJsmommy]

The normal order would be that you have your marriage convalidated (“blessed”), then are received into the Church, confirmed, and receive the Eucharist. Overall, though, you’re pursuing things correctly. Go ahead with RCIA while the Tribunal deals with your first marriage, then you’ll be ready to move forward.

Welcome home! Many blessings on your journey.

When I asked a priest about having my marriage co-validated/radical sanationed (it’s complicated) he suggested I wait until I’m through with RCIA.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

No, I haven’t talked to anyone at the tribunal. I didn’t know if that was allowed, or who to call, or who to talk to. I guess I feel pretty helpless at the moment.

Please talk with your pastor. He can help with the practical aspects and also with the spiritual support you need.

When I asked a priest about having my marriage co-validated/radical sanationed (it’s complicated) he suggested I wait until I’m through with RCIA.

I assume he knows the particulars of your situation and why it doesn’t fit into the normal pattern. That’s why so often the advice to people is “talk with your pastor.” He can explore the ins and outs of a situation – and as you say, yours is complicated – and tailor his advice to you.

 

[WillyAL]

Some days, and this is one of those, I don’t know what to do. I may just drop the whole idea, if I go to all this work, just to have my entire family rejected, it isn’t just me, it’s my whole family.

I hope my post, which you quoted, is not the source of your discouragement. I was just trying to point out a few of the harsh realities that you might have to deal with, and that most people are reluctant to mention. On the other hand, there is also the very real possibility that your first marriage will be deemed invalid and you can regularized your current relationship. As others have advised, your pastor can probably give you better guidance than you’ll find on here.

I can tell that this is really important to you, and I sincerely hope things work out in your favor.

 

[jimsnew]

It wasn’t really the source, but reinforced some of what I was already feeling.

 

[Colorad007]

It wasn’t really the source, but reinforced some of what I was already feeling.

I wouldn’t get too discouraged about it. You are getting far too ahead of yourself, trying to figure all of this out at once. Start the RCIA classes, talk with your parish, file your diocesan paperwork, and relax. All of this may feel like bureaucratic busybody stuff, but at the heart of it is a hugely important process that will sort out many of the knots in your life that, frankly, could be preventing God’s grace and healing to really take effect in your soul. For your sake and your family’s it is worth it.

 

[Joe_5859]

It sounds like you’re heading in the right direction, even if you’re not yet sure of when the pieces will fall into place.

In my parish, the pastor makes sure to follow up with the Tribunal office himself on behalf of anyone going through RCIA because of the time issue. That can move the process along a little more quickly. But that is likely to vary from diocese to diocese. It doesn’t hurt to ask, though, to make sure that the Tribunal office is aware that you are in RCIA and hoping to be received into the Church at Easter time. There are certain parts of the process that can’t go any faster because they have to leave people with a certain period of time in which to respond. But there are other parts that can.

Just keep in contact with your pastor about the process as it moves forward.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

As I understand it, the validity of a marriage is determined at the time of the wedding. If it was valid on that day, according to Catholic teaching, it’s a valid marriage. Events or behaviors that occur during the marriage will not render it invalid. They might give some insight into what was going on at the time of the wedding, but a valid marriage cannot be rendered invalid due to “fidelity issues” that manifest after the wedding.

Correct. The Church does not does dissolve an existing marriage bond in these cases (in more rare - in the US - instances of Pauline or Petrine Privelege it does). It just investigates whether a marriage actually took place and, if the evidence provides us “moral certainty” that no marriage resulted from the wedding ceremony, declares that conclusion.

In your case, with so many years (decades, actually) having passed, remembering facts, gathering witnesses, etc., could prove extremely difficult. So yes, unfortunately, the tribunal could very possibly refuse to grant you an annulment. If that turned out to be the case, according to Catholic teaching, you are still married to your first wife, your current marriage is considered an adulterous relationship, and unless you are willing to take some rather drastic measures, you would not be admitted to membership in the Church.

It is possible that some invalid marriages cannot be proven so due to time’s effect on the availability of evidence. But again this is not about a tribunal “refusing” to grant something that would be within their power. The tribunal can only form a judgment based upon available evidence - the sentence is a conclusion about the whether something in fact occurred X years ago - so if there is insufficient proof of nullity then it must operate according to the presumption that when two people go through the motions of getting married they do in fact marry (what chaos the world would be in if we had to assume the opposite, that people never mean what they say or accomplish what their speech-acts purport to accomplish!). The hard truth to hear for folks who have been in a long putative marriage is that this presumption in favor of a prior bond means that the Church must act (and require that her children do likewise) as if the first marriage was valid and the subsequent one, therefore, is not. So if our presumption is that a couple is not married, they may not morally engage in sexual intercourse.

What are these drastic measures? My (less than perfect) understanding is that you would be required to separate from your current wife. (28 happy years of marriage, Catholic children, and 5 grandchildren be damned.) A possible alternative might be to keep your family intact, but promise to discontinue any kind of sexual relationship with your wife.

It’s true that since cohabitation is not ordinarily permissible (due to near occasion of sin and possibility of scandal) the safest option in the event of a determination that the OP was truly - and thus remains - married to his first wife would be separation. But it is not accurate to characterize the Church’s judgment in this case as [family] be damned. The importance of the relationship with one’s children or grandchildren is, after all, so strong as to allow for chaste cohabitation in order to maintain family life. But if one’s children are already out of the home then living with their mother isn’t going to be such a central piece of performing parental duties, is it? It is also problematic, though, to portray the situation as if the Church is blowing off years of marriage. If a decree of nullity were not granted the implication would be that the OP has not been married these last 28 years. It doesn’t mean he didn’t intend to be. It doesn’t mean he didn’t act nobly in remaining faithful to what he thought was a marriage bond. So whatever good was involved in those 28 years together is to be affirmed and respected, and whatever obligations have arisen as a result must still in justice be fulfilled (e.g., in a single-income home it would be immoral for the earner to simply say “it turns out we’re not married so as of tomorrow you’re entirely on your own”). But the Church does say that, knowing what you now know, you have to continue acting in good faith - that good faith will just entail different choices because of your changed knowledge of the circumstances.

 

[jimsnew]

from what my advocate at the church has told me, the fidelity issues may be the more difficult to prove, in that you have to prove that she didn’t consider fidelity as essential to the marriage bond. I have been told that the refusal to have children is possibly more sure in my case, it is not something she would likely deny either. My ex is 56 and has no family, never even considered it.

 

[Joe_5859]

from what my advocate at the church has told me, the fidelity issues may be the more difficult to prove, in that you have to prove that she didn’t consider fidelity as essential to the marriage bond. I have been told that the refusal to have children is possibly more sure in my case, it is not something she would likely deny either. My ex is 56 and has no family, never even considered it.

That sounds about right to me. Openness to children is necessary for a valid marriage. So if she wasn’t open to children, then that would be an impediment.

I’m sure your advocate is steering you in the right direction.

 

[WillyAL]

It is possible that some invalid marriages cannot be proven so due to time’s effect on the availability of evidence. But again this is not about a tribunal “refusing” to grant something that would be within their power. The tribunal can only form a judgment based upon available evidence - the sentence is a conclusion about the whether something in fact occurred X years ago - so if there is insufficient proof of nullity then it must operate according to the presumption that when two people go through the motions of getting married they do in fact marry (what chaos the world would be in if we had to assume the opposite, that people never mean what they say or accomplish what their speech-acts purport to accomplish!). The hard truth to hear for folks who have been in a long putative marriage is that this presumption in favor of a prior bond means that the Church must act (and require that her children do likewise) as if the first marriage was valid and the subsequent one, therefore, is not. So if our presumption is that a couple is not married, they may not morally engage in sexual intercourse.

Although we eventually reached the same conclusion, your explanation of the Church’s teaching on this topic was more accurate. Thanks for sanding the rough edges off my explanation. Hopefully the OP will find your’s to be more helpful.

*But it is not accurate to characterize the Church’s judgment in this case as [family] be damned. *

On this point I’m afraid we’re going to have to disagree. The OP is a non-Catholic. As a young Baptist he was probably totally ignorant of Catholic rules regarding marriage and divorce. Even if he was aware of the Church’s position, he likely gave it very little thought since he was not a member of the Church - just as you and I don’t give much thought to the rules of marriage as taught by Islam or Judaism. As a young man he married the wrong person. Young people sometimes do that. After a divorce and the passing of a few years, the more experienced, mature version of the OP got it right. The result has been children, grandchildren, and almost three decades of marital happiness. To tell him that he hasn’t REALLY been married all this time is, in my mind, a lie. He followed the rules of his religion. To tell him that he should have followed Catholic rules is senseless. (And please…before anyone jumps in here and says, “Those aren’t Catholic rules, those are Christ’s rules,”… that’s just a Catholic understanding of Christ’s teaching. Many other Christians have a different understanding.) Now, after what I assume was much study and reflection, the OP wants to enter the Church. The fact that he is faced with the possibility of being required to separate from his wife of almost three decades in order to enter the Church is…well, I guess I can’t use the language that would most accurately reflect my true opinion on this. Not without being sanctioned by the ever-so-touchy moderators of this forum. Frankly, I don’t know why the OP would want to be associated with an organization that views his marriage that way. I guess he has his reasons.

Finally, I want to thank you for your thoughts and for having the cojones (assuming you’re a guy. If not…oops. I’m embarrassed) to address this subject in such an honest manner. I have found that when people inquire on here about the consequences of being unsuccessful in their attempt to get an annulment, they often get a sugar-coated reply (if they’re lucky enough to get one at all). I suspect that even faithful Catholics are uneasy about telling someone that the Church might require the destruction of their family.