Marriage / Annulment Question

[Heather_Maria]

I came through RCIA and was brought into the Church during the 2011 Easter vigil. Prior to being baptised, I was married, divoriced, married again ( different person) and seperated. I am going through the process to nave my first marriage annulled in the Church, but have not yet been able to file for divorce from my second husband. I plan to file for an annullment once my divorce is granted for my second marriage as well. Neither of my spouses have been baptised. Both marriages were civil ceremonies.

My question is: do I have to abstain from taking communion until I have the first marriage annulled?

And secondly, if I am denied a declaration of nullity, what do I do about my second marriage?

Thanks

 

[yablabo]

I came through RCIA and was brought into the Church during the 2011 Easter vigil. Prior to being baptised, I was married, divoriced, married again ( different person) and seperated. I am going through the process to nave my first marriage annulled in the Church, but have not yet been able to file for divorce from my second husband. I plan to file for an annullment once my divorce is granted for my second marriage as well. Neither of my spouses have been baptised. Both marriages were civil ceremonies.

My question is: do I have to abstain from taking communion until I have the first marriage annulled?

And secondly, if I am denied a declaration of nullity, what do I do about my second marriage?

Thanks

You have to abstain from taking Holy Communion until you have contrition, made your confession, received absolution from a valid priestly minister of the Sacrament of Penance, and done (or have begun to do) satisfaction for your sins.

If you are denied a declaration of nullity, then you have to live as if you are married to the man you refer to as your “first husband” until his death. What you refer to as your “second marriage” would be no marriage at all, merely a civil union.

– Nicole

 

[Suslar]

I came through RCIA and was brought into the Church during the 2011 Easter vigil. Prior to being baptised, I was married, divoriced, married again ( different person) and seperated. I am going through the process to nave my first marriage annulled in the Church, but have not yet been able to file for divorce from my second husband. I plan to file for an annullment once my divorce is granted for my second marriage as well. Neither of my spouses have been baptised. Both marriages were civil ceremonies.

My question is: do I have to abstain from taking communion until I have the first marriage annulled?

And secondly, if I am denied a declaration of nullity, what do I do about my second marriage?

Thanks

Welcome to the Church! Congratulations!!!
It seems as if you truly want to do thing correctly and so yes, that does mean following all the steps - including absaining from receiving Holy Communion for a time. But you can still come to Mass!!!

I know for me, the process to receive my Declarion of Nullity was really tough . . . it was emotionally exhausting. So, perhaps your sponsor or one of the group leaders from RCIA might still be available to help you and provide you with emotional support? If not, ask your pastor – he should be able to help or direct you to someone who can.

Good luck!
And again, welcome!!!

 

[underacloud]

Talk to your priest about this. I’m quite surprised that this was not addressed through your RCIA process.

There should be no reason to avoid receiving the Eucharist until your annulment comes through (if it does). If you were still living with your second husband there would be, but since you are not there is no reason that you should not receive the Eucharist. Your baptism cleanses you of any previous sins, so you should be perfectly free to receive the Eucharist. But like I said, if you have doubts, you should discuss with your priest.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Did the priest who received you into the Church know about your marriages and divorces?
It sounds to me like a highly irregular situation. You should be asking a priest.

 

[Suslar]

Talk to your priest about this. I’m quite surprised that this was not addressed through your RCIA process.

There should be no reason to avoid receiving the Eucharist until your annulment comes through (if it does). If you were still living with your second husband there would be, but since you are not there is no reason that you should not receive the Eucharist. Your baptism cleanses you of any previous sins, so you should be perfectly free to receive the Eucharist. But like I said, if you have doubts, you should discuss with your priest.

Are you sure about your response? The OP is presumed to be Sacramentally bound to the first man and still married again. Assuming the first marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church (which it is unless proven otherwise), the OP has committed adultery in attempting to marry another – even if separated from the 2nd spouse now.

Yes, you are right that the OP should definitely talk to her pastor. The sanctity of her soul is at stake. And when in such a state, solid spiritual guidance is a must.

I’d still suggest holding off on receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ until such time she can schedule that Reconciliation and correct her marital situation.

OP, you can still have a “Communion of Desire”

 

[kitkatty]

Undercloud and Jim Dandy, trust me it might be highly irregular I agree, but it does happen. I know personally of someone being received in to the Church and not having previous marriage issues addressed. Without going into complicated details let me just say this persons marriage situation was very messy,much more complicated than the op`s here. The priest actually was very orthodox but somehow it all slipped under the radar.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

This thread already demonstrates the dangers of asking an internet forum questions of this nature. Talk to your priest about the situation.

To add my own two cents into the mix, it’s my understanding that as long as a divorced person is not living with any kind of romantic partner then there is no reason they cannot receive communion, assuming they meet all the other requirements for receiving communion of course. The common perception that divorced people can’t receive communion until they receive an annulment or their old spouse dies is based on the all too common situation in which someone married, divorced, remarried, and is now living with their new legal spouse as husband and wife.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Talk to your priest about this. I’m quite surprised that this was not addressed through your RCIA process.

There should be no reason to avoid receiving the Eucharist until your annulment comes through (if it does). If you were still living with your second husband there would be, but since you are not there is no reason that you should not receive the Eucharist. Your baptism cleanses you of any previous sins, so you should be perfectly free to receive the Eucharist. But like I said, if you have doubts, you should discuss with your priest.

I tend to agree with you.

I am no Canon lawyer, but it is my understanding that the marriages in question were not valid in the Church’s eys because none of the parties was baptized and none of the ceremonies was a religious service. I believe that this is where the “pauline privilege” comes into play. You can find out more here.

The best advice, Heather Maria, talk to you priest asap.

Welcome home & peace be with you on your journey!

 

[puzzleannie]

I My question is: do I have to abstain from taking communion until I have the first marriage annulled?

And secondly, if I am denied a declaration of nullity, what do I do about my second marriage?

Thanks

these are questions that should have been brought to the intention of the pastor when you first inquired and had an interview at the start of RCIA. You must ask your own priest about your individual situation as regards to communion.
In general, if you are not living with either husband (in the sense commonly ascribed to “living together”) you may receive the sacraments. That is in general. nobody here except the priest can speak to your own situation. The order of reception of the sacraments for you is baptism, confirmation and first communion. You now make your confession whenever you are ready, since you have now been baptized. If you are otherwise in the state of grace you can receive communion. This is a question for the confessional, we cannot resolve it here.

You won’t be able to take any action on the 2nd marriage until the divorce is final. The earliest marriage is considered first. If it is found to be valid, the second marriage never happened so is not an issue. The problem is you would not be free to remarry as long as your first spouse lived. No point in foreseeing problems until they happen so let the tribunal take its course. When you talk to the priest you can also ask him how and when it is appropriate to check on how the annulment process is going.

welcome home.

a lot of the advice on some previous posts does not apply to your situation, so it is best to get an answer straight from your priest, making sure he knows all the facts.

 

[Phemie]

I tend to agree with you.

I am no Canon lawyer, but it is my understanding that the marriages in question were not valid in the Church’s eys because none of the parties was baptized and none of the ceremonies was a religious service. I believe that this is where the “pauline privilege” comes into play. You can find out more here.

The best advice, Heather Maria, talk to you priest asap.

Welcome home & peace be with you on your journey!

That’s a common misconception.

The marriages of non-Catholics are presumed valid until proved otherwise. It matters not if they are baptized or non-baptized.

Now, if the two are unbaptized and then one subsequently gets baptized and the other won’t continue in the marriage, then Pauline privilege can be invoked to dissolve the valid marriage. Note that their marriage was still considered valid, but because it was not sacramental (in order for the marriage to be a sacrament, both parties have to be baptized) it could be dissolved.

I agree that if the woman is not living with either ‘husband’ then there was nothing preventing her baptism, which washed away all her sins. As long as she remains chaste there is no reason for her to abstain from Communion. Yes, she has to pursue the annulments to determine if she must continue to live as a separated married woman or if she is free to date and marry.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

A marriage between two unbaptized persons or between a baptized person and an unbaptized person would, until any annulment is granted, be presumed valid but not sacramental. A valid non-sacramental marriage is extrinsically dissoluble, meaning it is possible for it to be dissolved from the outside by a relevant authority, like the Church. When done for a Catholic married to an unbaptized person, this is called the “Pauline privilege” since St. Paul himself recommended it in certain circumstances.

Again, this thread has demonstrated the dangers of using this kind of forum for getting canonical advice.

 

[Warrior1979]

For clarification, the Pauline Privilege involves the situation of two un-baptized persons with one converting to Christianity during marriage, and the Petrine Privilege involves a marriage with one baptized and one un-baptized person. Regardless, you’ll need to speak to a priest to guide you through your divorces/annulments/dissolutions.

You may receive the sacraments as others have noted if you are not having relations and have received absolution through confession. You will also have to receive a civil divorce from you second marriage before you can have the Church investigate your marriage situation.

 

[joanofarc2008]

You should speak to your priest immediately - he will be able to properly guide you. Also if you would like please feel free to drop in to the annulment and divorce support group - you can get there through the link in my signature block - we have a Canon lawyer that can help as well with some of the tougher questions.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I tend to agree with you.

I am no Canon lawyer, but it is my understanding that the marriages in question were not valid in the Church’s eys because none of the parties was baptized and none of the ceremonies was a religious service. I believe that this is where the “pauline privilege” comes into play. You can find out more here.

The best advice, Heather Maria, talk to you priest asap.

Welcome home & peace be with you on your journey!

I would specify the Church considers these not valid as far as a Sacrament is concerned. The Church still considers these to be “natural” marriages, which are good in and of themselves. Similar to how the Church would see a Jewish wedding or a Muslim wedding. They are not Sacramentally binding though, since a Sacramental marriage requires at least one party in the couple to be validly Baptized.

 

[Phemie]

I would specify the Church considers these not valid as far as a Sacrament is concerned. The Church still considers these to be “natural” marriages, which are good in and of themselves.

You must not equate valid with sacramental. Natural marriages are valid marriages.

Similar to how the Church would see a Jewish wedding or a Muslim wedding. They are not Sacramentally binding though, since a Sacramental marriage requires at least one party in the couple to be validly Baptized.

Of course a Jewish or Muslim marriage is not sacramental but it is considered valid. To be sacramental BOTH parties must be baptized. Non-baptized cannot receive sacraments so since both can’t receive the sacrament of Matrimony, neither does.

 

[Heather_Maria]

Thanks everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut. This was adressed during RCIA, however, a well meaning friend made some comments that made me question. I have an appointment with a priest next week and will get clarification.

 

[puzzleannie]

Thanks everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut. This was adressed during RCIA, however, a well meaning friend made some comments that made me question. I have an appointment with a priest next week and will get clarification.

thank you for including this information, as such a thing has caused anxiety to a great many people, and your course of action is naturally the correct one, to ask a priest who knows the situation and how to apply the law in your case, rather than a friend who usually does not know either side of the story.