Question on annulment

[Mickey]

I have been told this a few times and I am wondering if it is true:

A Catholic couple get divorced, seek an annulment, and it is granted. The priest then tells the former spouses that they will never again be able to receive Holy Communion in the Church because in the eyes of God, they are always married.

This statement by a priest goes against my understanding. But I have been told this at least three times now. Is it a pre-Vatican 2 understanding? Or is the priest just plain wrong?

 

[clmowry]

Somebody’s just got it wrong.

If an annulment is granted, then a valid sacramental marriage never existed.

They are now free to pursue marriage / celibacy as they see fit and are not prohibited from the sacraments except for the same reasons that anyone else would be. i.e. You can’t receive the sacrament of Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.

I’ve seen this stated be for as well, but not by a priest, it’s almost always someone who said a priest said. I’m not sure where the confusion comes from. My best guess is that it’s a situation where one or more of the spouses has already re-married before the annulment has been granted and folks are just mixing up the “pre-annulment” and “post-annulment” states.

Chuck

I have been told this a few times and I am wondering if it is true:

A Catholic couple get divorced, seek an annulment, and it is granted. The priest then tells the former spouses that they will never again be able to receive Holy Communion in the Church because in the eyes of God, they are always married.

This statement by a priest goes against my understanding. But I have been told this at least three times now. Is it a pre-Vatican 2 understanding? Or is the priest just plain wrong?

 

[jrabs]

If the Decree of Nullity is granted, then as long as they are not in mortal sin, they can receive.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I have been told this a few times and I am wondering if it is true:

A Catholic couple get divorced, seek an annulment, and it is granted. The priest then tells the former spouses that they will never again be able to receive Holy Communion in the Church because in the eyes of God, they are always married.

This statement by a priest goes against my understanding. But I have been told this at least three times now. Is it a pre-Vatican 2 understanding? Or is the priest just plain wrong?

As you’ve described it, the priest is plain wrong. Normally there is one party in a divorce that is unwilling to end the marriage, and of course it is no sin to be the victim of a divorce, it is only a mild sin if a sin at all to cooperate in a divorce you don’t really want, say to protect access to children. It is also, although very occasionally, acceptable to seek a civil divorce as a temporary measure, for instance to prevent an unreasonable partner from wasting large amounts of money.

If you claim to be the innocent party in a divorce this will be accepted.

The public act of remarriage after divorce is not accepted. However as soon as you dissolve the illicit marriage that is taken as token of repentance, and there are no further formal penalties - obviously the matter would have to be confessed in private confession, but that’s for your own conscience.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I can think of one situation in which the scenario might be correct.

If the hypothetical couple sought and received a *civil annulment *and did not seek ecclesiastical annulment, and if they married other parties, the priest could be correct.

Admittedly, it sounds like one of those locked-room mystery trick questions.

tee

 

[sadie2723]

I have been told this a few times and I am wondering if it is true:

A Catholic couple get divorced, seek an annulment, and it is granted. The priest then tells the former spouses that they will never again be able to receive Holy Communion in the Church because in the eyes of God, they are always married.

This statement by a priest goes against my understanding. But I have been told this at least three times now. Is it a pre-Vatican 2 understanding? Or is the priest just plain wrong?

I am going through the process right now. Here is the hard and fast rule straight from the Vatican. Once an annulment has been granted, the Church views the original marriage as never having even existed. Period. Thus, each member of the couple is not to be denied sacraments. Now, in the event that one gets divorced and then remarries without an annulment, that person cannot take communion until an annulment is complete.

 

[Evan]

A Catholic couple get divorced, seek an annulment, and it is granted. The priest then tells the former spouses that they will never again be able to receive Holy Communion in the Church because in the eyes of God, they are always married.

It’s even less true that described here.

A Catholic couple can get divorced, seek an annulment, and have it **not **be granted. They can continue to receive Holy Communion in the Church because in the eyes of God, they are still married.

Only problem comes up if they begin to commit adultery. For example: IF THEY REMARRY!!!.

It’s not the divorce that is the problem, it is the remarriage. For marriage is 'till death!

 

[Mickey]

It’s not the divorce that is the problem, it is the remarriage. For marriage is 'till death!

What if the annulment is granted, and they remarry not in the Church?

 

[1ke]

I have been told this a few times and I am wondering if it is true:

A Catholic couple get divorced, seek an annulment, and it is granted. The priest then tells the former spouses that they will never again be able to receive Holy Communion in the Church because in the eyes of God, they are always married.

This statement by a priest goes against my understanding. But I have been told this at least three times now. Is it a pre-Vatican 2 understanding? Or is the priest just plain wrong?

It is not true, nor has it ever been true. It is not a “pre Vatican II thing”.

A person who divorces and goes to confession may receive Communion regardless of whether they ever apply for or receive an decree of nullity.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the person telling you the story, they have the facts wrong, or the priest is just plain wrong.

 

[1ke]

What if the annulment is granted, and they remarry not in the Church?

If a Catholic who is free to marry (never married, or has a decree of nullity from a prior marriage) marries outside the Church without a dispensation, they may not receive Communion until and unless they have their marriage convalidated.

However, this has nothing to do with their receiving a decree of nullity for the prior marriage. They can’t receive Communion because they have violated Canon Law and entered into an invalid marriage.

 

[Mickey]

If a Catholic who is free to marry (never married, or has a decree of nullity from a prior marriage) marries outside the Church without a dispensation, they may not receive Communion until and unless they have their marriage convalidated.

However, this has nothing to do with their receiving a decree of nullity for the prior marriage. They can’t receive Communion because they have violated Canon Law and entered into an invalid marriage.

This may be the situation. I will have to find out if their second marriage was in the Church after the annulment.

Thanks 1ke!

 

[Ruthie]

I’m a fairly recent convert, and went through the annulment process recently; my first wedding was declared null.

It is not quite correct to say that a couple, who can’t be married in the eyes of the Church until the annulment is granted, may not receive the Eucharist. They may receive if they live “as brother and sister;” i.e. if they remain celibate until their marriage is validated.

I was amazed to discover that most couples in our situation (there were 3 more in our RCIA class) didn’t feel this was possible! But it explains why the common answer is “No, they can’t receive.”

Hey, I’m by no means frigid - but I’d rather spend eternity in heaven with my Lord *and *my sweet husband, than indulge my flesh and wind up with both of us in Hell.

We had nice timing with our validation - we renewed our vows on our tenth anniversary!

 

[puzzleannie]

I have been told this a few times and I am wondering if it is true:

A Catholic couple get divorced, seek an annulment, and it is granted. The priest then tells the former spouses that they will never again be able to receive Holy Communion in the Church because in the eyes of God, they are always married.

This statement by a priest goes against my understanding. But I have been told this at least three times now. Is it a pre-Vatican 2 understanding? Or is the priest just plain wrong?

can’t understand your question from this post.
If the diocesan canon law tribunal issued a decree of nullity, it means the marriage never happend, it was invalid from the beginining therefore the couple is free to marry (unless the decree placed conditions on remarriage). A civil court annulment has no effect on the validity of a marriage, is that what you mean?

Even if the divorced couple did not receive an annulment, as long as they have not married other people they are free to receive communion, as long as each is in a state of grace.

 

[puzzleannie]

What if the annulment is granted, and they remarry not in the Church?

why are you changing the story? are you asking hypothetical questions, are you relating something told to you by a third party, or are you asking questions about your own situation?

 

[Ignatius]

I have been told this a few times and I am wondering if it is true:

A Catholic couple get divorced, seek an annulment, and it is granted. The priest then tells the former spouses that they will never again be able to receive Holy Communion in the Church because in the eyes of God, they are always married.

This statement by a priest goes against my understanding. But I have been told this at least three times now.

Whoever told you this is
just plain wrong". For a marriage to be annulled it must have been invalid, therefore the couple were never married and are perfectly free to receive holy communion.

 

[Mickey]

why are you changing the story? are you asking hypothetical questions, are you relating something told to you by a third party, or are you asking questions about your own situation?

Two relatives have told me this. One ignored the priest’s advice and continues to receive communion with her second husband (both Catholic). The other remarried and fell away from the Church, (for many years now), because she was told she may not receive.

The same advice from two different priests did not sound correct. So I thought I would pose the question here.

I do not make up hypothetical situations to get answers for myself.

I’m not changing the story–I’m trying to find out why they received this advice.

 

[Mickey]

can’t understand your question from this post.
If the diocesan canon law tribunal issued a decree of nullity, it means the marriage never happend, it was invalid from the beginining therefore the couple is free to marry (unless the decree placed conditions on remarriage). A civil court annulment has no effect on the validity of a marriage, is that what you mean?

Even if the divorced couple did not receive an annulment, as long as they have not married other people they are free to receive communion, as long as each is in a state of grace.

It doesn’t make sense to me either.

 

[puzzleannie]

Two relatives have told me this. One ignored the priest’s advice and continues to receive communion with her second husband (both Catholic). The other remarried and fell away from the Church, (for many years now), because she was told she may not receive.

The same advice from two different priests did not sound correct. So I thought I would pose the question here.

I do not make up hypothetical situations to get answers for myself.

I’m not changing the story–I’m trying to find out why they received this advice.

for one thing, we don’t know the actual situation of these people, just what they reported to you or others about their situation. for the second part, we don’t know what the priest actually said, just their interpretation. My point is that it is useless to ask for definite answers on this forum about specific couples’ marriage situations. Every marriage situation is unique, and anything said here is speculation only, because there is not possible way we can know all the specifics of this situation, as you readily admit. These individuals have to be guided by their pastor, and by whatever answer they were given by the tribunal judgement. Quite frankly, it is nobody else’s business.

 

[Mickey]

puzzleannie;:

Quite frankly, it is nobody else’s business.

I am waiting to hear from a canon lawyer who is a friend of mine. I thought that I might come across others here who may have a similar situation.

My apologies for wasting your time.