Practice of Annulments? So confused, please help!

[1ke]

I still find it hard when I imagine, for an example, two women who were both non-Catholic, marrying young, getting divorced then remarrying and having children. Then both learn the truth of Catholicism and would like to join the church, one was married initially a civil ceremony and the other in her parents church. One welcomed into the church and one told she would first need to leave her husband with whom she has young children in order to join. Both vowed to stay with their initial spouse until death (I presume that this is stated in the civil ceremony). It just seems like a loophole that some benefit from, while others are condemned.

I’m not really following that example. Non-Catholics are not bound by Catholic form. You are talking about two non-Catholics who marry, divorce, and remarry. There is no difference in their situations.

 

[1ke]

I’m essentially making the point that for converts coming into the church, some would easily be able to annul their prior marriages and others would potentially have a harder time. The ones who have an easy time didn’t originally intend to leave loopholes in their marriage, because they had no concept of the catholic view of marriage.

I think you are laboring under some sort of misconception. Both would be in the same situation, as you’ve presented things.

Are you under the impression that a non-Catholic who marries in a civil ceremony is in a different situation than a non-Catholic who marries in some sort of religious ceremony?

That is not the case at all. Both are the same situation.

 

[Whitney]

I’m not really following that example. Non-Catholics are not bound by Catholic form. You are not talking about two non-Catholics who marry, divorce, and remarry. There is no difference in their situations

Oh ok! Then I might be completely confused, which is how I feel, so that’s helpful . I was under the impression that in RCIA you need your previous marriages examined because you cannot enter the church in an irregular marriage. I have read this on old and now closed discussions on this forum.

 

[1ke]

Oh ok! Then I might be completely confused, which is how I feel, so that’s helpful . I was under the impression that in RCIA you need your previous marriages examined because you cannot enter the church in an irregular marriage. I have read this on old and now closed discussions on this forum

Yes, absolutely. Anyone who had been married, divorced, and remarried would absolutely have to have their first marriage examined.

I think you do have some sort of misconception, i’m just having trouble pinning it down. So, maybe this chart would help:

https://www.archdioceseofanchorage.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GuideNulity2010.pdf

 

[TheLittleLady]

The Church recognizes valid, natural marriages

 

[Whitney]

Are you under the impression that a non-Catholic who marries in a civil ceremony is in a different situation than a non-Catholic who marries in some sort of religious ceremony?

That is not the case at all. Both are the same situation.

Yes this exactly what I thought I had read! Thank you for clarifying!

 

[dochawk]

So if you’re married in a courthouse or Vegas, etc, and you’re Catholic, you’re living in a state of sin as if you’re husband and wife but truly are not until you are remarried in the church? And are excluded from the Eucharist?

Not quite a direct quote from Henry VIII, but the same principle as when he split (according to him).

He argued that as not even the Pope could grant him a dispensation to marry his brother’s widow, he’d been living in sin the last several years, and could marry. (There was no divorce of that marriage, as the theologians in England [well, the ones he didn’t execute] agreed with his argument).

hawk