Priests and Divorce

[jmcrae]

The examination should have been before the wedding. Proper preparation and examination for the Sacrament of Marriage is not to be given a second class seat, by either those desiring to marry, and those preparing them for marriage. Both the “students” and “teachers” fell short.

Yes, and that’s why nowadays, it takes at least six months to get a wedding in the Catholic Church, and both parties must attend all the Engagement seminars and all of the interviews with the priest.

But it wasn’t like that 40 years ago - back then, I guess they trusted people to know what they were doing.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I’m not his Confessor, or anybody else’s; I have absolutely no idea how that part works.

I’m not his confessor either, that does not make the question mute. If it is so matter of fact to say there was no valid marriage when the Church deems an annulment appropriate, then what are the implications for all those years? Just a question at large, not directed at you or an individual.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I’m not his Confessor, or anybody else’s; I have absolutely no idea how that part works.

You don’t consider two years for the legal divorce to go through, four years to get the declaration of nullity, plus 16 years of Seminary to be “enough time?”

The way you’re talking, it sounds like they ordained him the same day he left home.

“The way you’re talking…”
No, my replies gave no indication of assuming how long or short a period of time elapsed. That said, if it took 25 years to find out one was not in a true marriage, it may be reasonble to wait 25 months, or 25 years to see that his walk is consistent with his talk, that he has a true vocation to be a deacon. Yes, an exageration, yet the point is valid. Especially for potential leaders of the Church.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

You don’t consider two years for the legal divorce to go through, four years to get the declaration of nullity, plus 16 years of Seminary to be “enough time?”

As far as two yearsfor the legal divorce, that may not have been a time of being about to think/focus adequately about a vocation to be a deacon. Same with four years to get a declaration of nullity.

As far as “16 years of Seminary”, what assumptions are being made here? First, my understanding is that the example was of a deacon, which takes several years. Even to become a priest, would probably take between 4 to 8 years, depending on the previous college education/philosphy courses.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Yes, and that’s why nowadays, it takes at least six months to get a wedding in the Catholic Church, and both parties must attend all the Engagement seminars and all of the interviews with the priest.

But it wasn’t like that 40 years ago - back then, I guess they trusted people to know what they were doing.

I have not gone through the seminars and interviews, however, from talking with those who have, seems much easier to pass a three credit college semester course than to go through the Church’s preparation program. And that’s probably being generous, more likely easier to pass a 1 credit college course.

Many are taking the “crash” weekend version, instead of doing parts every week or so. Instead of having time between sessions/lessons to talk about and learn what was being encouraged, it’s all crammed into a weekend. Atleast that’s what I’ve been told. Often the reasoning goes like “who’s got time for that”. The most disappointing part is that those doing the teaching appear to cater to this mentality, instead of holding the high ground.

Recently, a coworker was talking about the marriage preparation, and was joking that they had to sit on their hands during the NFP talk to keep from asking questions, indicating how much they disagreed with what was taught. People are going thru the motions to get married in the Catholic Church, and they know they can go thru the motions. How is more the hypocrit, the students or the teachers?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m not his confessor either, that does not make the question mute. If it is so matter of fact to say there was no valid marriage when the Church deems an annulment appropriate, then what are the implications for all those years? Just a question at large, not directed at you or an individual.

That would make the question moot, not mute.

As for what implications it would mean. There are none as they thought they were validly married.

Seems you have issues with the Church in this matter. We are stating what the Church Teaches in this area. It is really a private matter between the Church and those getting the annulment. It means nothing to us nor do we get a say in it unless we are called upon by the Tribunal for evidence.

To to supplement an early post. Defect of Form is also a reason that an annulment can be granted as a Catholic is bound by the Form of the Sacrament as layed out by the Church, if they willfully ignore that Form then the marriage will not be found to be valid.

But this thread is not about annulments, it is about if someone who is divorced can enter orders, which I believe has been answered.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

That would make the question moot, not mute.

As for what implications it would mean. There are none as they thought they were validly married.

Seems you have issues with the Church in this matter. We are stating what the Church Teaches in this area. It is really a private matter between the Church and those getting the annulment. It means nothing to us nor do we get a say in it unless we are called upon by the Tribunal for evidence.

To to supplement an early post. Defect of Form is also a reason that an annulment can be granted as a Catholic is bound by the Form of the Sacrament as layed out by the Church, if they willfully ignore that Form then the marriage will not be found to be valid.

But this thread is not about annulments, it is about if someone who is divorced can enter orders, which I believe has been answered.

That men who were divorced have become priests has been stated in this thread. Whether they should or not does not appear to be answered by explanation.

How convenient to state “seems you have issues with the Church…” As a member of the Body of Christ, it affects me who is chosen as Church leaders, and it seems chosing those who were divorced or annulled may not be the wisest decision, generally speaking. I have no issues with the Church, as lead and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I will ask questions when the acts and decisions of individuals to not appear consistent with what is best for the spiritual welfare of both the individuals, and the flock in general.

For my information, please provide what the Church states about divorced men becoming priests, with reference. In this thread, others have attested to divorced men becoming priests.

Michael

 

[jmcrae]

That men who were divorced have become priests has been stated in this thread. Whether they should or not does not appear to be answered by explanation.

The Church says, “Yes.”

How convenient to state “seems you have issues with the Church…” As a member of the Body of Christ, it affects me who is chosen as Church leaders, and it seems chosing those who were divorced or annulled may not be the wisest decision, generally speaking. I have no issues with the Church, as lead and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I will ask questions when the acts and decisions of individuals to not appear consistent with what is best for the spiritual welfare of both the individuals, and the flock in general.

What, exactly, are you expecting the people on this message board to do, besides recite the teachings of the Church?

For my information, please provide what the Church states about divorced men becoming priests, with reference.

1. Any man who receives a Declaration of Nullity for his purported marriage is regarded as a single (unmarried) man in the eyes of the Church.
2. Single (unmarried) men are eligible to enter the Seminary and discern whether they are called by God to become priests.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That men who were divorced have become priests has been stated in this thread. Whether they should or not does not appear to be answered by explanation.

It is the Church, in the office of the Bishop or religious superior, who determines the suitability of candidates for Holy Orders. Some dioceses and religious orders accept men with annulments, some do not.

The issue of divorce is a moot point becuase a divorce does not end a marriage in the eyes of the Church, nothing does. An annulment states that a marriage never was contracted.

There, that question has been answered. (I believe that it was answered above it just that some did not like the answer.)

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

The Church says, “Yes.”

Excellent explanation? No, Just what is the yes to? That divorced men may become priests? Reference please. No reference? Then throw up a straw man, “what do you want me to do, recite…”

Another poster in this thread states “It is the Church, in the office of the Bishop or religious superior, who determines the suitability of candidates for Holy Orders. Some dioceses and religious orders accept men with annulments, some do not.”

So, do some have the reference to the “yes” documement, and others don’t or decide to ignore the “yes”?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

1. Any man who receives a Declaration of Nullity for his purported marriage is regarded as a single (unmarried) man in the eyes of the Church.
2. Single (unmarried) men are eligible to enter the Seminary and discern whether they are called by God to become priests.

Reference please.

Do you really think someone who did not know they were in a true marriage for 25 years has the wisdom, discernment, judgement, etc… to be a good priest or deacon? Not all are called to be teachers or leaders. What does the evidence of their lives point to?

 

[jmcrae]

I have no idea what it is that you’re after.

Nobody on Catholic Answers has the authority to change the laws of the Church to suit your personal opinions, even if they wanted to.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

It is the Church, in the office of the Bishop or religious superior, who determines the suitability of candidates for Holy Orders. Some dioceses and religious orders accept men with annulments, some do not.

The issue of divorce is a moot point becuase a divorce does not end a marriage in the eyes of the Church, nothing does. An annulment states that a marriage never was contracted.

There, that question has been answered. (I believe that it was answered above it just that some did not like the answer.)

As you pointed out “But this thread is not about annulments, it is about if someone who is divorced can enter orders, which I believe has been answered.”

Posts in this thread state that divorced men have become priests. If that is true, then how is that consistent with divorce not ending a marriage in the eyes of the Church?

“Some dioceses and religious orders accept men with annulments, some do not.”
If the Church teaches annulled men may be accepted, why should some dioceses accept annulled men, and others not? Bias? Prejudice? Do some not know the teaching and reference? What is the reference?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I have no idea what it is that you’re after.

Nobody on Catholic Answers has the authority to change the laws of the Church to suit your personal opinions, even if they wanted to.

Who said anyone on Catholic Answers has the authority to change the laws of the Church? First of all, this is just a forum for discussion. No more, no less. Second, no one in an official capacity for Catholic Answers has teaching authority to speak for the Church. Period.

So, I ask questions and ask for reasonable explanations, and references. If you lack references, no need to resort to “to suit your personal opinion”.

Can you explain how if an annulment declares a marriage never existed, that those involved would not need to repent of the sin of fornication since no marriage truely existed? This is not “your personal opinion”. It is a serious question. How could they become a priest if they had not confessed a mortal sin(s)?

 

[jmcrae]

Reference please.

From The Compendium of the Catechism:

THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS

1. What is the sacrament of Holy Orders?

1536

It is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time.

*…] (skipping a bunch for space considerations)
*
332. Who can confer this sacrament?

1575-1576
1600

Only validly ordained bishops, as successors of the apostles, can confer the sacrament of Holy Orders.

1. Who can receive this sacrament?

1577-1578
1598

This sacrament can only be validly received by a baptized man. The Church recognizes herself as bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. No one can demand to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, but must be judged suitable for the ministry by the authorities of the Church.

1. Is it necessary to be celibate to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders?

1579-1580
1599

It is always necessary to be celibate for the episcopacy. For the priesthood in the Latin Church men who are practicing Catholics and celibate are chosen, men who intend to continue to live a celibate life “for the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12). In the Eastern Churches marriage is not permitted after one has been ordained. Married men can be ordained to the permanent diaconate.

*…] *

In reading through the canons on Marriage, although I can’t find any explicit or short definition of the term, a Declaration of Nullity signifies that the person was never actually married before, and (more importantly with regard to the valid reception of Holy Orders) is not now considered to be married.

Do you really think someone who did not know they were in a true marriage for 25 years has the wisdom, discernment, judgement, etc… to be a good priest or deacon?

Or a good husband. Yet the Church also permits them to get married. (I notice you don’t have any issues with that, though.)

Not all are called to be teachers or leaders.

That’s true. That’s why men who are discerning ordination are examined by the Bishop - to weed out those who are not suited to this vocation.

What does the evidence of their lives point to?

How in the world would I know? No one except his Confessor and Spiritual Director could possibly have any clear idea.

 

[lak611]

Who said anyone on Catholic Answers has the authority to change the laws of the Church? First of all, this is just a forum for discussion. No more, no less. Second, no one in an official capacity for Catholic Answers has teaching authority to speak for the Church. Period.

So, I ask questions and ask for reasonable explanations, and references. If you lack references, no need to resort to “to suit your personal opinion”.

Can you explain how if an annulment declares a marriage never existed, that those involved would not need to repent of the sin of fornication since no marriage truely existed? This is not “your personal opinion”. It is a serious question. How could they become a priest if they had not confessed a mortal sin(s)?

There is no mortal sin. There is no fornication. 1. What is a Declaration of Nullity (annulment)?
A declaration of nullity states that, according to Church law, a given marriage was not valid (and therefore not binding) at the time a couple spoke their marriage vows. A person asks this Office to look at a previous marriage which has ended in divorce, and, if possible, to issue a declaration that this previous marriage no longer binds either party to the union. In no way should this process be thought of as a type of “Catholic Divorce.” A declaration of nullity states that a marriage was invalid from the beginning. A civil divorce, on the other hand, asserts that a marriage, valid or not, is dissolved. The Catholic Church does not grant divorces.

Neither is an annulment a statement that a marriage never existed civilly. Rather, it is a determination that certain conditions were present at the time the marriage was entered that made it an invalid union according to Catholic Church teaching. The civil effects and recognition of that marriage remain intact and unchanged.

Moreover, an annulment is not a statement that the marriage was entered into in bad faith by either of the parties. It is not a statement of who caused the marriage to fail or who was most guilty for its failure. Those are certainly important questions for a person to ask. But they are not the questions a Tribunal must answer.

The annulment process, in its most simple form, involves any person coming to the Church and asking to be heard. Information is gathered by us and in the end, we answer that person’s request: the marriage was invalid or valid according to the laws of the Church.

1. Does an annulment have anything to do with civil law?
   No. In the United States, a declaration that a marriage was invalid from the start has no effect before the laws of any state. It does not affect anything that is determined by civil law such as alimony, child custody, visitation rights, division of property, legitimacy of the children, etc. It pertains only to the internal governance of the Catholic Church.
2. Does an annulment affect the legitimacy of children?
   No. The legitimacy of children is determined by the laws of the states. Just as a divorce does not make children illegitimate, neither does an annulment granted by the Church. The laws of the Church state that children born of a supposedly valid union are legitimate children. Therefore, if the marriage is later shown to have been invalid, the status of the children remains unchanged: they are legitimate.

See the rest of the explanation here. stcdio.org/annulment.htm

 

[jmcrae]

How could they become a priest if they had not confessed a mortal sin(s)?

Why are you assuming that they haven’t?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As you pointed out “But this thread is not about annulments, it is about if someone who is divorced can enter orders, which I believe has been answered.”

Posts in this thread state that divorced men have become priests. If that is true, then how is that consistent with divorce not ending a marriage in the eyes of the Church?

Those with annulments may enter Holy Orders if the bishop or religious superior accepts them. A divorce ends a civil marriage, which has nothing to do with the Church, it is a matter of civil law.

I think you have some misunderstanding here.

“Some dioceses and religious orders accept men with annulments, some do not.”
If the Church teaches annulled men may be accepted, why should some dioceses accept annulled men, and others not? Bias? Prejudice? Do some not know the teaching and reference? What is the reference?

No, the dioceses and religious orders that do not accept men with annulments usually say that they do this to avoid scandal. I am sure you can understand that.

But having said that, it is up to each bishop and religious order to decide what requirements they have. The Church sets the very basic requirements. Many religious orders will not accept them over the age of 35, many dioceses also have age requirements. Many require that the candidate have a bachelors degree and be totally debt free (including student loans). Is this some bias? Prejudice? Or is it that you have an opinion that you deem is superior to what the Church actually Teaches?

I can see that there is no way to get though to you with this so it is time for me to move on to other things.

I will leave this in the very capable hands of jmcrae, that is until the thread is closed for being so far off topic.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

A declaration of nullity states that a marriage was invalid from the beginning.

Exactly. No valid marriage, no valid consummation of a valid marriage. The marriage is declared invalid from the beginning. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the authority of a tribunal to make that declaration. Only pointing out what the declaration seems to indicate. As Jesus taught in Mt 5:37 “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.”

First is the Marriage valid or not? Yes or no.
If a valid marriage, is consummation allowable? Yes or no.
If not a valid marriage, is consummation allowable? Yes or no.
Anything beyond this is what?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

First is the Marriage valid or not? Yes or no.

This is not determined until one, or both of the parties to a marriage start the annulment process. So the answer as to if a marriage is valid or not does not occur at the time the marriage is contracted, or attempted to be contracted.

If a valid marriage, is consummation allowable? Yes or no.
If not a valid marriage, is consummation allowable? Yes or no.

Consummation following a wedding is a standard procedure, I would think.

There is no way to know if the marriage is invalid. If the priest knows it will be invalid he will not proceed with the ceremony.

All marriages are assumed by the Church to be valid until one, or both, parties request that the tribunal look at their marriage to rule on it.

Anything beyond this is what?

Have no clue what you are fishing for here.

It seems that you are stuck on when the marriage is declared to be not valid. It happens when the process is finished, it does not happen when the wedding takes place.