Is it a sin to hate a process?

[sparkle]

Psalm 37:4-5:

May I respectfully suggest that if you are having as much hatred for the process and bitterness toward not getting “access” to the Sacraments that you aren’t truly understanding what the Sacrament of Marriage is and what an annulment is for. I suggest that you talk with your priest about this.

If either you or your current wife had been married in any church prior to your marriage now, and have not received annulments from those prior marriages, then your priest is correct in saying that you are living in sin. In the eyes of God you are still married to your previous spouses.

I’m assuming that the 2 of you have converted to Catholicism after you got married to each other… is this true? If 2 people want to get married in the Catholic church it is definitely encouraged for them to receive their annulments prior to getting married. The issue of not receiving the Sacraments only applies if people who have been formerly married to others get married again without an annulment. If the same 2 people stayed single while they were waiting for annulments from previous marriages, and were not in any other state of sin, they are free to receive the Sacraments, even if they are divorced.

Psalm 37: is most correct here in the above post. It is not them who made the rules stickman–but that’s just the way of it. And I think it is for the best. I can imagine however, that if you were not aware of this whole annulment process–it would be a bit miffing now to find out about the rigamarole. Maybe you should call another parish to discuss it with another priest who might have more time for you. I’m sure there must be a kind soul who will listen. Good Luck.

 

[chevalier]

Catholic2003:

Do you have a problem with this ruling? To me it seems to be in accord with the rules of the Church, and any tribunal judge should have ruled the same way.

I said myself it was perfectly in accordance with canon law. I would have had to rule the same if I had been the judge. What I have a problem with is the fact that if one more person had been present, the law would have considered the marriage valid and sacramental. With one less than two, people got away at ease. Lucky, weren’t they? Wonder what God thinks about such formalities.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

chevalier:

Wonder what God thinks about such formalities.

I always thought Red Tape was invented by God. It is in every worldly institution including His Church, as universal as human life itself. Then again, I guess so is evil.

Alan

 

[Catholic2003]

chevalier:

I said myself it was perfectly in accordance with canon law. I would have had to rule the same if I had been the judge. What I have a problem with is the fact that if one more person had been present, the law would have considered the marriage valid and sacramental. With one less than two, people got away at ease. Lucky, weren’t they? Wonder what God thinks about such formalities.

The men who God put in charge of the Church seem to love these formalities. It seems like every year the Pope’s address to the Roman Rota talks about the need for those formalities, and how it is important to use the external forum (Church tribunals) to establish the validity or invalidity of prior marriages, instead of each person turning to their own consciences before God. (Or the Eastern Orthodox view that God’s perfect forgiveness extends to all our prior mistakes, including divorce and remarriage.)

But presumably God adheres to the formalities designed by the leaders of His Church. So for the couple in question, because they had only one witness, God did not impart to them the sacramental grace of matrimony. It seems possible to me that this lack of sacramental grace was a contributing factor in the marriage failing.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Catholic2003:

But presumably God adheres to the formalities designed by the leaders of His Church. So for the couple in question, because they had only one witness, God did not impart to them the sacramental grace of matrimony. It seems possible to me that this lack of sacramental grace was a contributing factor in the marriage failing.

One witness, plus the priest and the couple? I thought wherever two or more are gathered in God’s name, He is there. I’d think His being there would make up for the other witness.

Gee I think I should go read the paper or something, since I obviously have nothing of substance to contribute.

Alan

 

[chevalier]

Let’s think… a man and a woman on an isolated island, Robinson Crusoe or Blue Lagoon style. Is it really so essential that they wait for two cannibals to show up and witness their marriage?

 

[Catholic2003]

chevalier:

Let’s think… a man and a woman on an isolated island, Robinson Crusoe or Blue Lagoon style. Is it really so essential that they wait for two cannibals to show up and witness their marriage?

Are you saying:

• (1) The Church should change her marriage rules so that God would impart sacramental grace in your island scenario; or
• (2) The Church has the marriage rules wrong, and God does already impart sacramental grace in your island scenario?

If you answer (2), then this means that Church tribunals, following an incorrect canon law, are mistakenly granting decrees of nullity to valid marriages. So I hope you are going to answer (1).

 

[chevalier]

How about you answering how you would solve the problem? There being trouble with things in the canon law is nothing new. Should see my thread on it. It came to 30 points. The rules change but what doesn’t change is the fact that it’s the spouses who minister the sacrament to each other. While this doesn’t mean they’re outside of the Church’s jurisdiction for it, it surely changes the perspective a bit.

 

[Catholic2003]

chevalier:

How about you answering how you would solve the problem?

I think we should follow what the Eastern Orthodox have been doing for two thousand years. No tribunals, no legalistic poking around into the intimate details of people’s lives. But that’s just me talking.

 

[thestickman]

Is the Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Catholic2003:

I think we should follow what the Eastern Orthodox have been doing for two thousand years. No tribunals, no legalistic poking around into the intimate details of people’s lives. But that’s just me talking.

What* do* they do?

 

[Catholic2003]

BLB_Oregon:

What* do* they do?

From Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes by John Meyendorff:

But this “toleration” did not mean approval. It implied repentance, and remarriage was allowed only to those men or women whose previous marriages could be considered as non-existent in practice (the various imperial codes listed the cases). Meanwhile, the Latin West became legalistically intolerant toward divorce, while admitting, without limitation, any number of remarriages after widowhood. Guided in its practice by the legal notion of contract, indissoluble as long as both parties were alive, the West seemed to ignore the idea that marriage, if it is a sacrament, has to be projected as an eternal bond into the Kingdom of God; that like all sacraments marriage requires a free response and implies the possibility of human rejection and human mistake; and that, after such a sinful rejection or human mistake, repentance always allows a new beginning. This is the theological basis for the toleration of divorce in the early Christian Church, as well as in Byzantium.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Catholic2003:

From Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes by John Meyendorff:

This doesn’t sound so bad. Where do I sign up?

Actually, if Jesus really gave the keys to Peter, and if the Church is led by Peter’s successors, then wouldn’t that give the Church authority to loose the bonds that make two partners one, no? Is the bond of marriage one of those “whatevers” Jesus was talking about when He said “whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?”

I bring this up to combat the notion that the Church “has” to undergo a big tribunal and discover the facts and do all that stuff, because God has given them no choice but to do so in such situations. Either Jesus gave the Church authority to loose bonds or He did not. Is all that red tape an invention of the God? If canon law is not infallible, may we not speak against it and even hope for change?

Alan

 

[UtahMaggie]

thestickman:

Been waiting on annulments for my wife and I to be decided for over a year. I’ve begun recently to feel hatred for the process. Not for the people doing or not doing their jobs–just the process itself. Please keep in mind, I wasn’t born or raised Catholic so I’m admittedly ignorant on these issues.

Is it a sin to hate the annulment process?

It wouldn’t say it’s a sin to hate the process. It could be that you are truly just frustrated and feel out of control of the situation. It took my husband and I over 2 years to get our annulments done and have our marriage blessed in the Church. But when the day finally came and our priest was presiding, he made the comment that it had taken a long time for us to get there. That made me realize that he understood and that it was worth the wait. I honestly know how you feel. You will both be in my prayers.

Maggie

 

[didymus]

AlanFromWichita:

This doesn’t sound so bad. Where do I sign up?

Actually, if Jesus really gave the keys to Peter, and if the Church is led by Peter’s successors, then wouldn’t that give the Church authority to loose the bonds that make two partners one, no? Is the bond of marriage one of those “whatevers” Jesus was talking about when He said “whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?”

I bring this up to combat the notion that the Church “has” to undergo a big tribunal and discover the facts and do all that stuff, because God has given them no choice but to do so in such situations. Either Jesus gave the Church authority to loose bonds or He did not. Is all that red tape an invention of the God? If canon law is not infallible, may we not speak against it and even hope for change?

Alan

Well, I think one has to be careful not to change it in such a way that it undermines marriage as a Sacrament. But I think the fear of doing that the Canon law has, in effect, “built a fence around the Law” as our Jewish brethren might put it.

Making annulments basically a matter of contract law and concentrating on the mens rea of the participants at the time they married makes everything legally and logically consistent.
But that flies in the face of what we all know: that vows need not only to be entered into but kept; that people change, sometimes much for the worse. How often have we heard the cry, “S/he isn’t the person I married?”

I don’t think the Heavens would fall or the Sacrament of Marriage destroyed if the innocent party at least, were released when the other spouse, by abuse or adultery, or other circumstances, had repudiated their vows and refused attempts to repair the marriage.

I should admit here that I have a special interest. My wife was married to an alcoholic abuser when I met her (civil marriage). She had made every effort to save the marriage, sought counselling, et cetera, but he refused. If she had been a Catholic married to a Catholic chances of getting an annulment might have been good but by no means a lock.

That was more than twenty years ago and the Church is MUCH better about telling women not to take abuse, which is good but still hasn’t made abuse grounds for annulment.

Sorry for the rant, I know I’ve gotten way off topic. Stickman, I don’t think it’s a sin to hate the process, please don’t let it turn you against the Church itself.

Pax vobiscum

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

::Loud, long sigh::

No, you are not experiencing “hate” in this process. It is frustration. I am a cradle Catholic, and it was a long, hard wait for me when I went through the process, what with a priest who refused to sign the paperwork at first because he didn’t understand (he was Croatian), and witnesses who felt more than happy to add their unsolicited opinions to the offerings on the questionnaire. Therefore, if it is frustration, and you are not punching in walls or Tribunal members or carrying on like a wounded hyena and making your wife’s life miserable because of it, I’d say what you have is some tempting frustration WHICH YOU SEEM TO OVERCOME. I am sure the devil would like to you to say heck with it, and encourage you to blow it off; or at the very least, make all those around you miserable. I think, so far, you are foiling it.

Many blessings on you and yours, and WELCOME ABOARD!

 

[thestickman]

OutinChgoburbs,

Thanks for the kind words. I will NOT throw in the towel. My wife understands (she told me tonight she wasn’t going to tell me to be patient because patience has zip to do with anything at this point) and I’ve gone out of my way not to spread the misery as it were. I’ve not punched a wall nor a Tribunal member and have no plans for either. I’m frustrated and very angry but with the prayers of those who care and God’s help I will see it thru.

I will be thankful when it’s all over, one way or the other. I will also do my very best to effect postitive, productive change in how the process is managed in my diocese if God grants me this annulment and I am allowed into the Church. If nothing else I will work in my own parish to see there’s some sort of support group for folks going thru this so they don’t experience the nitemare we have. When it’s mismanaged and poorly explained, the annulment process is a nitemare, I assure you.

Oh goody, in 12 more days it will be 14 months since we began this process. At least if the proverbial bread truck takes me out at the red light down the street and I live till a priest arrives (assuming he can be dragged away from a meeting, of course), I can be brought into the Church then.

So much of this would make perfect sense if I had been raised and & taught about the Sacrament of Marriage. Had I been I would have zero reason to complain.

End of frustration-driven rant.