If a prior to the wedding a non-Catholic promises

[seabird3579]

to allow the children to be raised Catholic, and then 18 months into the marriage (no children yet) changes his mind. Is this grounds for annulment?

My Catholic daughter married an unbaptized, non-believer who professed complete and undying love for her. They went through the pre-Cana classes and were “counseled” as to the requirements of a non-Catholic marrying a Catholic. He gave his consent that the children would be raised Catholic.

Now the dilemma: The other night he and my daughter were over for dinner and afterwards were discussing “how” they would educate their future children in regards to religion. That’s when he stated, “…after she finishes telling them about the Catholic Faith, I intend to tell them how I believe.” My daughter replied, “then you should wait until they are at least 16 years old (after Confirmation). He replied he would start as young as seven years if that’s when they asked a question regarding whether or not God exists…etc…”

My question for any apologists or those who’ve had experience in this area: If he proceeds to insist on this notion, is it grounds for annulment? I haven’t consulted a priest as of yet, but probably will if no one can help me out here.

Thanks everyone.

 

[askeptic]

seabird3579:

to allow the children to be raised Catholic, and then 18 months into the marriage (no children yet) changes his mind. Is this grounds for annulment?

My Catholic daughter married an unbaptized, non-believer who professed complete and undying love for her. They went through the pre-Cana classes and were “counseled” as to the requirements of a non-Catholic marrying a Catholic. He gave his consent that the children would be raised Catholic.

Now the dilemma: The other night he and my daughter were over for dinner and afterwards were discussing “how” they would educate their future children in regards to religion. That’s when he stated, “…after she finishes telling them about the Catholic Faith, I intend to tell them how I believe.” My daughter replied, “then you should wait until they are at least 16 years old (after Confirmation). He replied he would start as young as seven years if that’s when they asked a question regarding whether or not God exists…etc…”

My question for any apologists or those who’ve had experience in this area: If he proceeds to insist on this notion, is it grounds for annulment? I haven’t consulted a priest as of yet, but probably will if no one can help me out here.

Thanks everyone.

Ah, good old Catholic family values: let’s destroy a marriage and the love between two human beings because the husband wants to present his children (who are still going to be given a Catholic education) with what he thinks about the world and God.

It doesn’t seem like he is going back on his promise. She is still going to raise them Catholics. What’s wrong with knowing what their dad believes?

I think your attitude is very destructive. My culture has a lot of negative jokes about mothers-in-law. I think the fact that you’re running to a priest to find out whether your daughter’s marriage to the man who loves her and whom she presumably loves can be destroyed is very disturbing.

 

[seabird3579]

askeptic:

Ah, good old Catholic family values: let’s destroy a marriage and the love between two human beings because the husband wants to present his children (who are still going to be given a Catholic education) with what he thinks about the world and God.

It doesn’t seem like he is going back on his promise. She is still going to raise them Catholics. What’s wrong with knowing what their dad believes?

I think your attitude is very destructive. My culture has a lot of negative jokes about mothers-in-law. I think the fact that you’re running to a priest to find out whether your daughter’s marriage to the man who loves her and whom she presumably loves can be destroyed is very disturbing.

So…Agnostics have no problem with broken promises?

…great set of values…

 

[Liberian]

Seabird,

I think I agree with A Skeptic: even thinking about trying for an annulment is the wrong thing to do. There are very few things that God is on record as saying that He hates, but divorce is one of them.

That said, the fact that the son-in-law seems to have reneged on his word is something that he and your daughter are going to have to work out. Possibly you misunderstood him and he is simply going to answer the kid’s questions when the kid asks them. That is not at all incompatible with “raising the children Catholic” and is in fact basic honesty.

• Liberian

 

[dulcissima]

Your future grandkids won’t be too old before they realize that their dad is a non-believer and will have questions for him. If they are going to be raised Catholic, and it sounds like they will, he will have to defend those beliefs to them.

From what you wrote it doesn’t sound like your son-in-law is going back on his word, he is just realizing that this will be an issue in the future.

It really is not your place at all to begin investigating the possibility of an annulment.

 

[puzzleannie]

it is a situation for the couple to deal with and work out in their own way, in-laws, parents, or members of this forum have no (name removed by moderator)ut and should be making no judgements. concerned family members can be of most service by living out their own beliefs, whatever they may be, and setting a good example.

 

[AndyF]

seabird3579:

From: Radio Replies Vol I, Frs Rumble,Carty, and the late Cardinal F.J. Sheen

q.1266 Why does the Catholic Church forbid mixed marriages.?

a. For many reasons.

Marriage is a Sacrament, and those who desire to receive it should be duly and validly baptized Christians. The Church has no certainty that any non-Catholic has ever been validly baptized at all. Again, it is a sacrilege to receive a Sacrament whilst one is in a state of grave sin. The Catholic party prepares by a good confession, whilst the non-Catholic more often than not gives no thought whatsoever to the matter.
Then,too, any children of the marriage have the bad example of one of the parents who never fulfills Catholic duties, even if the poor children are brought up as Catholics at all. The Catholic party is constantly subject to discouragement in the practice of his or her religion, and is even exposed to the danger of complete loss of faith and of salvation in the end.
Nor are mixed marriages, as a rule, in the interests of the parties themselves from the point of view of mutual happiness. Marriage is difficult enough in any case when the first glow of love begins to settle down to the realities of life. It is vastly more difficult when the Protestant does not understand Catholic ways, has no sympathy at all with the Catholic party on the most vital of all matters-religion, and even resents the claims of the Catholic Church. Mutual misunderstandings result, and the Protestant, not making the Catholic has happy as he expected, does not make himself has happy has he dreamed.

Andy

 

[cameron_lansing]

seabird3579:

to allow the children to be raised Catholic, and then 18 months into the marriage (no children yet) changes his mind. Is this grounds for annulment?

My Catholic daughter married an unbaptized, non-believer who professed complete and undying love for her. They went through the pre-Cana classes and were “counseled” as to the requirements of a non-Catholic marrying a Catholic. He gave his consent that the children would be raised Catholic.

Now the dilemma: The other night he and my daughter were over for dinner and afterwards were discussing “how” they would educate their future children in regards to religion. That’s when he stated, “…after she finishes telling them about the Catholic Faith, I intend to tell them how I believe.” My daughter replied, “then you should wait until they are at least 16 years old (after Confirmation). He replied he would start as young as seven years if that’s when they asked a question regarding whether or not God exists…etc…”

My question for any apologists or those who’ve had experience in this area: If he proceeds to insist on this notion, is it grounds for annulment? I haven’t consulted a priest as of yet, but probably will if no one can help me out here.

Thanks everyone.

I’m a canon lawyer and work full time in a tribunal.

As to the technical aspect of your question, an intention to exclude the good of children that is made during the marriage is not invalidating. This has to be present by a positive act of the will at the time of marital consent.

The broader point is that the Church wants to help marriages work so that the couple might grow in holiness and grace. The Church examines questions of nullity only when common life is irretrievably broken. We have a divinely imposed duty to strive for reconciliation first.

Responsibility for working on the marriage will fall to your daughter in these difficult circumstances. But I’m certain that you will encourage her to seek assistance from her parish priest, give her moral support to persevere, and continue to show a mother’s love through prayer.

We do our best on this forum to mindfully say a prayer for her and you and the conversion of her husband.

God bless you.

 

[seabird3579]

cameron_lansing:

Responsibility for working on the marriage will fall to your daughter in these difficult circumstances. But I’m certain that you will encourage her to seek assistance from her parish priest, give her moral support to persevere, and continue to show a mother’s love through prayer.

We do our best on this forum to mindfully say a prayer for her and you and the conversion of her husband.

God bless you.

Thank you for responding. I absolutely agree with you that the responsibility falls on my daughter’s shoulders and she will have to work through this spiritually. This is a subject that she and her fiance talked about often during their year long engagement. I suggested books at that time for them to read, and separately made sure my daughter knew what she was embarking on being married to a non-believer. She was 23 and I was convinced that she knew what the life she had chosen would entail. She loves her Faith, but has never been a child to “dig deeper” into it. This trial that she will go through will, no doubt, will be a great testing of her faith. I will be praying for both of them. He is a man with a very good heart, but rough circumstances growing up. Both of his parents have passed away, and I feel not only like his mother-in-law, but a mom too, to some degree. Anyway, I have complete faith in God over these kinds of issues and I know my future grandchildren will be safe under the Lord’s protection through the family’s prayers…(and friends, too; thanks everyone for offering to pray.)

 

[seabird3579]

cameron_lansing:

I’m a canon lawyer and work full time in a tribunal.

As to the technical aspect of your question, an intention to exclude the good of children that is made during the marriage is not invalidating. This has to be present by a positive act of the will at the time of marital consent…

Dear cameron_lansing,

Since you are a canon lawyer and work full time in a tribunal, could you comment on something my mother told me back in the 1970s. She is a devout Catholic and my dad was a non-believer. He use to riducule her mercilessly about her religion and even threatened a number of times not to allow the kids to be raised Catholic, but then would relent.

Here’s my question: She said that a priest told her back in the 1960s that there was something called the “Pauline privilege” whereby IF my dad refused to let her raise the kids Catholic, she could divorce (I think he meant annulment) based on the fact that he would not allow her to keep her obligations. Do you know anything about the “Pauline privilege”? Or do modern tribunals not use that phrasing anymore?

 

[1ke]

seabird3579:

to allow the children to be raised Catholic, and then 18 months into the marriage (no children yet) changes his mind. Is this grounds for annulment?

My Catholic daughter married an unbaptized, non-believer who professed complete and undying love for her. They went through the pre-Cana classes and were “counseled” as to the requirements of a non-Catholic marrying a Catholic. He gave his consent that the children would be raised Catholic.

Canon law requires the Catholic to promise to do all they can to raise the children Catholic. The non-Catholic makes no such promise as a condition to marriage.

Your daughter has what is called a “good and natural marriage” since your son-in-law is unbaptized. This is different from a Sacramental marriage, but it doesn’t mean it’s invalid.

seabird3579:

Now the dilemma: The other night he and my daughter were over for dinner and afterwards were discussing “how” they would educate their future children in regards to religion. That’s when he stated, “…after she finishes telling them about the Catholic Faith, I intend to tell them how I believe.” My daughter replied, “then you should wait until they are at least 16 years old (after Confirmation). He replied he would start as young as seven years if that’s when they asked a question regarding whether or not God exists…etc…”

My question for any apologists or those who’ve had experience in this area: If he proceeds to insist on this notion, is it grounds for annulment? I haven’t consulted a priest as of yet, but probably will if no one can help me out here.

Thanks everyone.

This is unfortunate. In and of itself it is not grounds for annulment. You haven’t indicated that your daughter desires to divorce this man and seek dissolution of their marriage. She would need to talk to a priest if and when that became her intention. Basically, otherwise, *it’s not your business * (although I understand your concern) and you have no standing to consult a priest or anyone else on this.

There are specific guidelines that apply in the situation of a non-believer married to a baptized person.

This is not something that can be answered here. It requires a review by competent church authorities.

 

[askeptic]

seabird3579:

So…Agnostics have no problem with broken promises?

…great set of values…

He promised to let the wife raise the kids Catholic, I don’t see how this excludes sharing his own beliefs with his children.

Surely children can be raised Catholic and still be exposed to for instance the beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and agnostics. They will be exposed to these beliefs in school, by reading books, by watching television anyway. Do you propose that all these activities be controlled?

I didn’t know raising your children Catholic meant hiding the fact that other people subscribe to a different set of beliefs.

 

[seabird3579]

1ke:

Canon law requires the Catholic to promise to do all they can to raise the children Catholic. The non-Catholic makes no such promise as a condition to marriage…

Are you a Canon law lawyer? If so, could you quote me *verbatim * where it says they promise to do all they can to raise the children Catholic? And then, show me what it says *verbatim * about non-Catholics married to a Catholic. I actually think you are quite mistaken on both counts. My understanding has always been that Catholics *must raise * their children Catholic, they are required to pass on the Faith.

1ke:

Your daughter has what is called a “good and natural marriage” since your son-in-law is unbaptized. This is different from a Sacramental marriage, but it doesn’t mean it’s invalid. …

This “good and natural marriage” phrase is found No Where in the Catechism regarding the Sacrament of Marriage. It says that non-Catholics (baptised or not) must first obtain an *express dispensation * and, agree to allow the children to be raised Catholic.

Regarding the above, the Catechism says this:

**#1635 **
According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission ecclesiastical authority. (137) In case of disparity of cult (which is an unbaptised person – my words added) an *express dispensation * from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. (138) This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church. (139)

emphasis were added by me

As far as I know the parish priest that married them did his job and provided an express dispensation regarding my son-in-law, and, he in turn promised to allow them to be raised as Catholics.

My daughter Definitely has a Sacramental Marriage. She was married by a Catholic priest, in a Catholic Church, with the Church’s express permission and blessing. It** is ** a Sacramental marriage as it stands now.

By the way, Annulment is not a “Catholic divorce.” According to the Catechism, an annulment means that the Church finds that the “marriage” never existed to begin with. Sometimes one or both spouses enter the marriage “fradulently” – that would be grounds for an annulment.

1ke:

This is unfortunate. In and of itself it is not grounds for annulment. You haven’t indicated that your daughter desires to divorce this man and seek dissolution of their marriage. She would need to talk to a priest if and when that became her intention. Basically, otherwise, *it’s not your business * (although I understand your concern) and you have no standing to consult a priest or anyone else on this…

There seems to be an attitude on this thread about mothers “minding their own businesses” and not getting involved in their daughter’s marriage. Well, let me put your fears to rest. I am a devoted Catholic mother who loves each and every one of her children. I have no intention of “minding my own business.” I will be there to pray for, support, answer questions, help my daughter cope, stand by and stand up for her Faith and her committment. That’s what mothers are for. I have no problem with being politically and socially incorrect. My children and My faith come first.

1ke:

There are specific guidelines that apply in the situation of a non-believer married to a baptized person. …

…and they would be…

1ke:

This is not something that can be answered here. It requires a review by competent church authorities.

Are you a lay person, clergy, or an outsider looking in?

 

[seabird3579]

askeptic:

He promised to let the wife raise the kids Catholic, I don’t see how this excludes sharing his own beliefs with his children.

Surely children can be raised Catholic and still be exposed to for instance the beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and agnostics. They will be exposed to these beliefs in school, by reading books, by watching television anyway. Do you propose that all these activities be controlled?

I didn’t know raising your children Catholic meant hiding the fact that other people subscribe to a different set of beliefs.

Well, I welcome your “speculations” and “personal opinions” regarding the posted question, but as a non-Catholic I could not take your advice seriously. I’m Catholic, I submit to the Magisterium and I know that my first priority is to instruct my children and my grandchildren in the Faith. These requirements are binding on all true Catholics. There’s no wiggling out of it or rationalizing it away. I’ve accepted it completely for the past five years and intend to make up for lost time.

Christians have a duty before the Lord. We will be held accountable. To whom much is given, much is expected. If our children fail to learn an essential christian doctrine because we as parents fail to get involved, we must answer to God for that failure. Here I am referring to myself. I take my responsibility very seriously.

 

[LittleDeb]

seabird3579:

This “good and natural marriage” phrase is found No Where in the Catechism regarding the Sacrament of Marriage. It says that non-Catholics (baptised or not) must first obtain an *express dispensation * and, agree to allow the children to be raised Catholic.

Regarding the above, the Catechism says this:

**#1635 **
According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission ecclesiastical authority. (137) In case of disparity of cult (which is an unbaptised person – my words added) an *express dispensation * from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. (138) This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church. (139)

emphasis were added by me

As far as I know the parish priest that married them did his job and provided an express dispensation regarding my son-in-law, and, he in turn promised to allow them to be raised as Catholics.

My daughter Definitely has a Sacramental Marriage. She was married by a Catholic priest, in a Catholic Church, with the Church’s express permission and blessing. It** is ** a Sacramental marriage as it stands now.

I have no wish to upset you in this difficult time but I would like to help clarify this issue on marriage. My own mother-in-law is a fabulous woman and while not Catholic does everything in her power to support us in our beliefs. I can support and understand the desire to help your daughter and son-in-law in any way possible. On a funny note…she still states at times that my husband, “had to convert” to marry me. He just smiles and pats her on the head. (A running joke between them since he’s 6 feet tall and she is 5 feet tall.)

The definitions of marriage terms are in the Code of Canon Law not the Catechism. I am sorry to say, but if your son-in-law is not baptised, then their marriage is indeed a “good and natural” (also known as a “good and true”) marriage. To be a Sacrament both parties must be baptized. A Good and True marriage is still presumed valid. Since baptism is the sacrament of initiation it must have occured for someone to enter any and all other Sacraments. While your daughter could enter a Sacramental marriage her (unbaptized) husband can not.

A baptized person of a different Christian sect can enter a Sacramental marriage, but there is still the “disparity of cult” issue. None of these terms are saying anything about the holiness of your daughter or the validity of her union with her husband. Civil governments have their laws. The Church has Hers. These terms help define if a lawful marriage took place. (God’s laws not secular society’s laws.)

Since my sister is in a similar position as your daughter, I can sympathize with you. My Sis and her DH discussed it at length as to what amount was appropriate at what ages to share. Their five year old knows the answer to her question, “Why doesn’t Daddy go to church with us?” “Because he is not Catholic.” It doesn’t seem strange to her at all. As she gets older and asks more questions they will each be answered in an age appropriate manner.

My prayers are with you and your family. It can be difficult to live a mixed marriage, but not impossible.

 

[1ke]

seabird3579:

Are you a Canon law lawyer?

No, nor did I claim to be.

seabird3579:

If so, could you quote me *verbatim * where it says they promise to do all they can to raise the children Catholic?

Sure. It’s Canon 1125, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983:

Can. 1125 The local Ordinary can grant this permission if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled:

1ƒ the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptized and brought up in the catholic Church;

seabird3579:

And then, show me what it says *verbatim * about non-Catholics married to a Catholic.

Canon 1125, paragraph 2:

2ƒ the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the catholic party

seabird3579:

I actually think you are quite mistaken on both counts. My understanding has always been that Catholics *must raise * their children Catholic, they are required to pass on the Faith.

No, I am not wrong, as the Canons I just posted confirm.

seabird3579:

This “good and natural marriage” phrase is found No Where in the Catechism regarding the Sacrament of Marriage. It says that non-Catholics (baptised or not) must first obtain an *express dispensation * and, agree to allow the children to be raised Catholic.

Can. 1055 ß1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

Yes, in order for a Catholic to marry an un-baptized person a dispensation must be granted. That is not what is meant by “good and natural marriage”. A Sacramental marriage only takes place between two baptized persons. A marriage between two non-baptized persons or a baptized and non-baptized person is not a Sacrament. It is a good and natural marriage. As I stated, that does not mean it is invalid. Following the canonical form creates a valid, but not Sacramental, marriage.

There are many good books on the Sacrament that you could pick up. The Catechism is of course an excellent source of Church teaching, but it is not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of every subject.

seabird3579:

My daughter Definitely has a Sacramental Marriage. She was married by a Catholic priest, in a Catholic Church, with the Church’s express permission and blessing. It** is ** a Sacramental marriage as it stands now.

It is definitely a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church. It is not, however, a Sacrament. A Sacrament can only take place between two baptized persons. Baptism is required first in order to receive any other Sacrament. Were your son in law to be baptized, then their marriage would automatically become Sacramental.

seabird3579:

By the way, Annulment is not a “Catholic divorce.” According to the Catechism, an annulment means that the Church finds that the “marriage” never existed to begin with. Sometimes one or both spouses enter the marriage “fradulently” – that would be grounds for an annulment.

I know what an annulment is, and I did not say it was a “Catholic divorce”. However, your daughter cannot seek an annulment while married to her spouse. Examination of a marriage to determine whether or not the marriage should receive a decree of nullity can only occur after the marriage has broken down and in most cases dissolved civilly.

seabird3579:

I will be there to pray for, support, answer questions, help my daughter cope, stand by and stand up for her Faith and her committment. That’s what mothers are for. I have no problem with being politically and socially incorrect. My children and My faith come first.

Support is one thing, suggesting that your wife leave her husband and seek dissolution of the marriage is another.

seabird3579:

Are you a lay person, clergy, or an outsider looking in?

I am a Catholic answering questions posed on a Catholic message board. You clearly dislike the answers you are receiving, but that does not change the facts.

 

[cameron_lansing]

seabird3579:

Dear cameron_lansing,

Since you are a canon lawyer and work full time in a tribunal, could you comment on something my mother told me back in the 1970s. She is a devout Catholic and my dad was a non-believer. He use to riducule her mercilessly about her religion and even threatened a number of times not to allow the kids to be raised Catholic, but then would relent.

Here’s my question: She said that a priest told her back in the 1960s that there was something called the “Pauline privilege” whereby IF my dad refused to let her raise the kids Catholic, she could divorce (I think he meant annulment) based on the fact that he would not allow her to keep her obligations. Do you know anything about the “Pauline privilege”? Or do modern tribunals not use that phrasing anymore?

The “Pauline privilege” is treated in canons 1143-1150, and the term as well as the practice remains in wide use. You can read the canons at a number of internet sites. The sites of many tribunals also explain the term and the process. It is understood to be based on I Corinthians 7:12-16 and thus founded in divine law.

Briefly, it is the dissolution of a valid marriage between two non baptized parties by the local ordinary (i.e., the diocesan bishop, vicar general, etc.) under certain, specific conditions in favor of the faith of the party who seeks baptism.

Among other conditions, a chief one is that both parties were unbaptized at the time of marital consent. Since your mother was a baptized Catholic at the time of the wedding, as I understand the situation from your post. Consequently, the Pauline privilege would not have been applicable in her case.

It should be made clear that the Pauline privilege is not an “annulment” since the process does not involve declaring the former marriage invalid. It is not an exercise of judicial power either, but of a kind of power in the Church called jurisdiction. The bishop is free to delegate the power to declare the Pauline privilege or to declare it himself, but in practice most turn Paulines over to their tribunals and delegate someone there to handle them.

The use of the Pauline privilege would not be related to the issue of a non Catholic keeping or reneging from the promises required of the non Catholic prior to the 1983 code of canon law. Today as noted, the declaration and promises required in mixed marriages are made by the Catholic party and the non Catholic party is to be informed.

I suspect therefore that something else may have been discussed back in the 60’s, but it would not be proper for me to speculate, and certainly it would be improper for me to speculate publicly.

 

[seabird3579]

1ke:

Support is one thing, suggesting that your wife leave her husband and seek dissolution of the marriage is another.
.

Please do not confuse the readers: I am the mother, my Catholic daughter married a non-baptised man in the Church. I have never once said I was seeking to disolve their marriage. I only seek to support my daughter spiritually and canonically.

Possibly in your haste to “proove” something to me, you let your dislike of me get the best of you. I forgive you.

I know it must be difficult for those of you who are in marriages that are mixed or know someone who is, and they have a mother or mother-in-law that you consider meddling. Apparently, you’ve transferred this irritating situation to me and my situation.

I love my children and I will be involved with them until I die or they die. That is what Love commands. Supporting your children takes many avenues, some will not know until they are there themselves.

I believe the Blessed Mother was Very Involved with Jesus and His ministry.

 

[ChristsSoldier]

For what its worth, counting my experience with my wife whom was not Catholic when we wed - I agree with ASkeptic (although his comments could have been less gruff).
A promise to raise the Children in our faith is a blessing in it’s self. The fact that he is not and believes differently couldn’t be hidden from children if they wished or tried to…
I will admit my wife and I would have had stronger discussions about her mother’s thoughts (which wouldnt be appropriate) on the subject than the actual issue…
Prayers and Peace!
CS

 

[vluvski]

Seabird, 1ke provided answers and explanations regarding your questions. Please do not jump all over her.

The gist of your post is that your daughter had one discussion with her husband about how dad would share his “faith,” and now you’re asking about annullments.
I have strong convictions about not marrying a non-Catholic, but if I was your daughter and found out you asked about annullments on my behalf, I’d be pretty hurt and offended.

I must agree with some of the non-Catholic posters here. Informing the children of their father’s beliefs according to their age is not in direct opposition to the children being raised Catholic. Sometimes highlighting the differences between religions will actually strengthen one’s belief in the truth.

If your daughter expresses serious concern about this to you, perhaps a first course of action would be to practice NFP until their intentions on raising the children Catholic can be resolved rather than writing off an arguably valid marriage and seeking an annullment.