Marriage question.

[MEPayne]

Hi everyone!

I am a cradle Catholic who is married to a non-Catholic. At the time we were dating, I was not practicing my faith and, since he did not want to, we didn’t marry in the Catholic church. This is my first and only marriage; however, this is his third. First time he was married in the Unity Church (he was baptised there as a child) and the second was a justice of the peace. We also married in the Unity church (generic Christian faith) but we basically lived an agnostic life…

Now, 17 years later, I’m feeling strongly pulled back to the Catholic church. This makes my husband somewhat uncomfortable, as I’m sure he’s worried that I will try to drag him into the Catholic Church. I’ve told him this won’t happen (though I do pray for him privately) and he has no problem with me going to Mass or Adoration on a regular basis…

Now to my question: I know that we have to have our marriage convalidated in order for me to be able to receive Communion. And in order for that to happen, he has to have his first marriage annulled, correct? The second marriage would be a defect of form, right? What all is involved in getting the non-Catholic party’s marriage annulled in the Catholic church? I know I need to talk to the priest (I’m working up the nerve for that) but it would be nice to know beforehand something about what we’d be walking into. Hubby says he wouldn’t have a problem doing it, if he only had to sign a paper or something, but I fear that it involves a lot more than that. I don’t want to start fights with him but my heart is aching to receive the Eucharist again!

I’m hoping someone who has been through this can help me. I’m new here; please be gentle!

TIA and God Bless!!

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi everyone!

I am a cradle Catholic who is married to a non-Catholic. At the time we were dating, I was not practicing my faith and, since he did not want to, we didn’t marry in the Catholic church. This is my first and only marriage; however, this is his third. First time he was married in the Unity Church (he was baptised there as a child) and the second was a justice of the peace. We also married in the Unity church (generic Christian faith) but we basically lived an agnostic life…

Now, 17 years later, I’m feeling strongly pulled back to the Catholic church. This makes my husband somewhat uncomfortable, as I’m sure he’s worried that I will try to drag him into the Catholic Church. I’ve told him this won’t happen (though I do pray for him privately) and he has no problem with me going to Mass or Adoration on a regular basis…

Now to my question: I know that we have to have our marriage convalidated in order for me to be able to receive Communion. And in order for that to happen, he has to have his first marriage annulled, correct? The second marriage would be a defect of form, right? What all is involved in getting the non-Catholic party’s marriage annulled in the Catholic church? I know I need to talk to the priest (I’m working up the nerve for that) but it would be nice to know beforehand something about what we’d be walking into. Hubby says he wouldn’t have a problem doing it, if he only had to sign a paper or something, but I fear that it involves a lot more than that. I don’t want to start fights with him but my heart is aching to receive the Eucharist again!

I’m hoping someone who has been through this can help me. I’m new here; please be gentle!

TIA and God Bless!!

You won’t find an answer here.

You need to talk with your parish priest or other diocesan/pastoral minister to find out exactly what needs to be done in this situation. Marriage situations are very complicated. Way beyond the capability of the Internet.

Best wishes.

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
Yes,You will not find the ansver here,unless some priest are reading theese sites,but You don’t have to be afraid of talking to Your priest,I know the wiew the Church has on issues like theese,but nobody is going to judge You. I wish You all the best,and will offer a Hail Mary for Your cause,beleiving that God will help You.
Blessings,
Totterman

 

[Being_Brave]

I’m so green to Catholicism, I don’t have answers to your questions, but I see an oportunity to share my favorite bible verse. My best friend is Baptist, but has been such a strong shoulder for me to lean on, even in my conversion to Catholicism. When I started getting frustrated with my hubby (raised Lutheran, but not active) for not going to church with me she told me to look up 1 Peter 3:1-2, and said to remember that while he may seem like the one that’s being difficult, it’s me that’s changing, not him.

(1)Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, (2)when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

I took that to heart and stopped pushing him. Since then I’ve noticed that my husband has secretly been reading my “Catholic books” and has started asking questions about the faith.

 

[1ke]

And in order for that to happen, he has to have his first marriage annulled, correct?

Yes. He needs to submit his marriage to the tribunal for investigation nullity.

The second marriage would be a defect of form, right?

No.

Non-Catholics are not bound to Catholic canon law on the form of marriage. This marriage would also need to be investigated by the tribunal.

What all is involved in getting the non-Catholic party’s marriage annulled in the Catholic church?

The same things are involved as when a Catholic submits a marriage to the tribunal.

I know I need to talk to the priest (I’m working up the nerve for that) but it would be nice to know beforehand something about what we’d be walking into. Hubby says he wouldn’t have a problem doing it, if he only had to sign a paper or something, but I fear that it involves a lot more than that. I don’t want to start fights with him but my heart is aching to receive the Eucharist again!

It will involve more than signing papers. The best thing is to visit the priest and talk with him (both of you). There need to be **valid grounds **for a decree of nullity to even pursue one. The prior marriage status of either of his former wives is also relevant, for example if either of them were married before him. So, yes, all the facts must be investigated.

By the way, the Unity “church” rejects the Trinity, therefore he is **not **validly baptized if he received a baptism in that denomination. The Petrine Privilege may also be a possibility but that would be something to discuss in the nullity process.

This chart might be helpful to you:

diocs.org/Portals/1/Documents/Tribunal/Decision_matrix.pdf

 

[MEPayne]

Thank you, Totterman and Being Brave, for your support and prayers! That means a lot.

Thank you, Ike, for all the information. Wow, it is more complicated than I suspected. That chart is really helpful too, thank you. At least I have some idea of what we’re walking into.

Keep me in your prayers, thank you!!

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The Petrine Privilege may also be a possibility …

1ke would you please expand on this? I have thought about this and I don’t see how this situation can meet the conditions for the Petrine Privilege.

 

[1ke]

1ke would you please expand on this? I have thought about this and I don’t see how this situation can meet the conditions for the Petrine Privilege.

He is not validly baptized. Therefore, the Petrine Privilege may be an avenue.

A Petrine Privilege is a dissolution of marriage in which at least one of the parties to a previous marriage was non-baptized throughout the entire duration of their married life. If the petitioner is the non-baptized party, he or she must either wish to be baptized or received into the Catholic Church, or seek to marry a baptized, practicing Catholic.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

He is not validly baptized. Therefore, the Petrine Privilege may be an avenue.

A Petrine Privilege is a dissolution of marriage in which at least one of the parties to a previous marriage was non-baptized throughout the entire duration of their married life. If the petitioner is the non-baptized party, he or she must either wish to be baptized or received into the Catholic Church, or seek to marry a baptized, practicing Catholic.

Duh:blush:, my fault. I was thinking of it from the point of view of the wife, as she was the OP. It’s the husband who would have to seek the Petrine Privilege.

 

[rick43235]

Now, 17 years later, I’m feeling strongly pulled back to the Catholic church. This makes my husband somewhat uncomfortable, as I’m sure he’s worried that I will try to drag him into the Catholic Church. I’ve told him this won’t happen (though I do pray for him privately) and he has no problem with me going to Mass or Adoration on a regular basis…

Like your husband, I am a non-Catholic. Unlike your husband, I knew I was marrying someone who was a practicing Catholic, so I had some idea of what I was getting into. After 17 years of living “an agnostic lifestyle,” your sudden religious awakening must have been somewhat of a surprise to your husband. While it’s good that “he has no problem” with you attending religious observances, I have to wonder - how has he responded to the news that his two previous marriages, from many years ago, need (from the Church’s point of view) to be subjected to scrutiny from a Catholic marriage tribunal?

 

[MissMichal]

Point of order: Matt, I think you have Pauline Privilege in mind, as opposed to Petrine Privilege. And that would apply only if OP were seeking an annulment of the current marriage, which isn’t the case.

As everyone else says, be sure to go over this with your priest. I don’t want to add confusion to confusion, but your marital status can actually be different from your husband’s marital status. Since this is your first and only wedding, and you were married in a Christian church, your priest may give you the go-ahead to receive communion without having your marriage convalidated. If you had been practicing at the time, you could have received a “dispensation from form” to get married in the other church, but talk to your priest about it. Contrary to popular belief, this church isn’t big on excluding people from communion over technical details.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Point of order: Matt, I think you have Pauline Privilege in mind, as opposed to Petrine Privilege.

How does one answer a point of order? Second point of order? Anyway, it was 1ke who suggested this case might meet the conditions of the Petrine Privilege, not me.

However, I do agree with him that the husband might meet the conditions for the Petrine Privilege - one of the parties (in this case the husband) intends to marry a baptized Catholic.

The situation for the Pauline Privilege does not apply - both parties to the marriage are unbaptized (but in this case the wife is baptized); one of the unbaptized partners seeks baptism and converts to the Catholic Church; and the partner who does not seek baptism leaves the marriage - that is not happening here.

 

[MEPayne]

…your marital status can actually be different from your husband’s marital status. Since this is your first and only wedding, and you were married in a Christian church, your priest may give you the go-ahead to receive communion without having your marriage convalidated. If you had been practicing at the time, you could have received a “dispensation from form” to get married in the other church, but talk to your priest about it. Contrary to popular belief, this church isn’t big on excluding people from communion over technical details.

MissMichal, this would be my ideal wish, but this is the first time I’m hearing this possibility. I’ve always been told that I married someone who wasn’t free to marry, even though he’s non-Catholic and, apparently, not validly baptised. This last part won’t go over too well with the hubby. He is a good, kind and honest man, but I think he will feel harshly judged by my church, and I’d have to agree, especially since he is not seeking to become Catholic.

Rick, to be honest, I’ve been running hot and cold with this for two years now and he probably thinks it will blow over. I haven’t wanted to push him to go through the annulment process, since I’m not sure I agree with it myself. I do want to be back in my church in good standing, but it does seem like “technical details” as MissMichal put it; it feels like a lot of red tape and hoop-jumping to backtrack and say my marriage is okay. That might sound harsh, but this is why I’m “hot and cold” over the whole issue. We have been happily married for 17 years, we both believe we were married before God and I can understand how this all would be hurtful to him.

Thank you again to everyone who’s responding to my question. It’s a lot to think about and pray over. Please pray for me. God bless~

Mary

 

[rick43235]

Rick, to be honest, I’ve been running hot and cold with this for two years now and he probably thinks it will blow over. I haven’t wanted to push him to go through the annulment process, since I’m not sure I agree with it myself. I do want to be back in my church in good standing, but it does seem like “technical details” as MissMichal put it; it feels like a lot of red tape and hoop-jumping to backtrack and say my marriage is okay. That might sound harsh, but this is why I’m “hot and cold” over the whole issue. We have been happily married for 17 years, we both believe we were married before God and I can understand how this all would be hurtful to him.

I have investigated, but have not yet started, the annulment process. From the perspective of a non-Catholic, whose first marriage ended decades ago, and whose first marriage was celebrated without a Catholic in sight, the annulment process impresses me as being a giant pain in the butt. There is a lengthy application full of the most intrusive questions imaginable. Included is a form authorizing the release of the records for any marriage counseling you may have received. (Yeah…like my former wife is going to agree to that.) Now, some people have said that the annulment process is "healing’ in that it forces you to deal with issues the may have doomed your first marriage. For me, however, digging up skeletons that have been buried for decades would be anything but healing.

You seem to be sincere about this religious re-awakening you have experienced, so I can appreciate what you are feeling. I predict, however, that the annulment process is going to be a huge (and in my mind, unnecessary) roadblock on your path back to full communion with the Church.

 

[MEPayne]

You seem to be sincere about this religious re-awakening you have experienced, so I can appreciate what you are feeling. I predict, however, that the annulment process is going to be a huge (and in my mind, unnecessary) roadblock on your path back to full communion with the Church.

Sadly, I think this might be so. Are you considering becoming a Catholic or are you just marrying one? I think it’s punitive to make the non-Catholic party go through all the prying questions and annulment. I can see it for the Catholic party, since we desire to be committed to the church and all her teachings, but for someone who has no desire to convert (my husband is happy with his own spirituality and I respect that) it just seems alienating. Not good for a marriage.

Good luck to you, Rick. I pray that God will give us both the strength to do His Will. God Bless~
Mary

 

[FCEGM]

Sadly, I think this might be so. Are you considering becoming a Catholic or are you just marrying one? I think it’s punitive to make the non-Catholic party go through all the prying questions and annulment. I can see it for the Catholic party, since we desire to be committed to the church and all her teachings, but for someone who has no desire to convert (my husband is happy with his own spirituality and I respect that) it just seems alienating. Not good for a marriage.

Good luck to you, Rick. I pray that God will give us both the strength to do His Will. God Bless~
Mary

Mary, the reason for the non-Catholic party having to go through the annulment process is precisely so that the Catholic party will then be in a valid marriage and thus able to receive the Eucharist. I pray that your husband will surprise you with his willingness to do this for you.

 

[5Loaves]

The Church holds marriage in the highest regard. She assumes that every marriage is valid. It is assumed that a marriage between those who are not Catholic is/was a valid marriage.

Catholics have the obligation to be married in the Church or to receive dispensation to marry outside the Church.

Only those who are free to marry can marry. Someone who was validly married (any marriage of two non Catholics, and any marriage of Catholic done inside the Church or with dispensation to marry outside the Church) and has not received a decree of nullity for that marriage is not free to marry someone else, since they are considered still married.

Just as the Church upholds the dignity of every baptism done with proper form and matter including those done outside the Church and that those baptisms are considered valid and unrepeatable, also the Church upholds the dignity of every marriage entered into, so every marriage between a man and a woman both free to marry is considered valid until proven otherwise.

This is an attempt to explain the perspective of the Church. Shouting at this messenger isn’t necessary…

The reports I’ve heard from both canon lawyers and petitioners is that unresponsive witnesses are frequently what slows the tribunal process. In the case of witnesses, having witnesses who have a clear understanding of the process and are willing witnesses makes a significant difference. The parish priest is the one to help explain, or put one in touch with the person who can knowledgeably explain, the situations under which a marriage may be declared null, and then help determine what persons can witness to those elements. Then help those witnesses understand the importance of their responses being made in a timely fashion.

 

[1ke]

MissMichal, this would be my ideal wish, but this is the first time I’m hearing this possibility.

The poster who raised this possibility is simply wrong. This is NOT possible.

I’ve always been told that I married someone who wasn’t free to marry, even though he’s non-Catholic and, apparently, not validly baptised. This last part won’t go over too well with the hubby. He is a good, kind and honest man, but I think he will feel harshly judged by my church, and I’d have to agree, especially since he is not seeking to become Catholic.

I’m not sure why he would feel judged. The Church makes an *observation *that he is baptized in the Unity church.

This church does not believe in the Trinity-- hence their name… “unity”. They make no secret of this. It’s in their statement of faith. The Catholic Church believes in the Trinity.

They are simply different. If he doesn’t believe in the Trinity, then he should be equally eager to acknowledge this difference.

 

[MEPayne]

Mary, the reason for the non-Catholic party having to go through the annulment process is precisely so that the Catholic party will then be in a valid marriage and thus able to receive the Eucharist. I pray that your husband will surprise you with his willingness to do this for you.

Yes, I understand the purpose, and it does make sense. I suppose I’m just feeling bogged down in all the legalese and “intrusive questions” that are to come, and we haven’t even started yet. I know I/we need to go talk to the priest. Would you all recommend going by myself first or should I try to make an appointment for both of us?

Please keep me in your prayers. I’m feeling a little weak… God Bless!

 

[1ke]

Yes, I understand the purpose, and it does make sense. I suppose I’m just feeling bogged down in all the legalese and “intrusive questions” that are to come, and we haven’t even started yet. I know I/we need to go talk to the priest. Would you all recommend going by myself first or should I try to make an appointment for both of us?

Please keep me in your prayers. I’m feeling a little weak… God Bless!

Go together.

And, take it one step at a time. The entire process can look overwhelming, but if you just look at the step you are on it will be more manageable.