RCIA annulment confusion

[st_felicity]

Here’s the details…

A baptised non-Catholic person seeking to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church was married to an unbaptised person in a Protestant church wedding, but subsequently obtained a divorce.

The former spouse of the non-Catholic is still living.

The Candidate married a Catholic in a Protestant church wedding.

The Candidate was not ready to obtain an annulment, but the Catholic spouse wished to have the marriage “blessed” so that the Catholic could receive communion (unsure if this was actually a convalidation ???).

Priest performed some rite, and the Catholic participates fully in liturgy.

Non-Catholic spouse now wants to become Catholic this Easter. There is a new priest at the parish who has told the couple that an annulment of the first marriage is not necessary for the non-Catholic to receive the sacraments this Easter based upon the actions of the former priest.

How can this be correct?

 

[st_felicity]

I’m thinking that there was a radical sanation so that the Catholic could be restored, but that doesn’t solve the non-Catholic’s marriage issue related to receiving the sacraments this Easter and that is the issue I am confused about.

 

[passus]

Here’s the details…

A baptised non-Catholic person seeking to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church was married to an unbaptised person in a Protestant church wedding, but subsequently obtained a divorce.

The former spouse of the non-Catholic is still living.

The Candidate married a Catholic in a Protestant church wedding.

The Candidate was not ready to obtain an annulment, but the Catholic spouse wished to have the marriage “blessed” so that the Catholic could receive communion (unsure if this was actually a convalidation ???).

Priest performed some rite, and the Catholic participates fully in liturgy.

Non-Catholic spouse now wants to become Catholic this Easter. There is a new priest at the parish who has told the couple that an annulment of the first marriage is not necessary for the non-Catholic to receive the sacraments this Easter based upon the actions of the former priest.

How can this be correct?

Assuming I correctly read and understand everything you have written there…

The former priest could not have convalidated a marriage between two people upon one of which the covenant of a prior marriage was still binding, so the priest who said this is assuming that everything was taken care of when the convalidation of the couple’s current marriage was performed.

 

[st_felicity]

Assuming I correctly read and understand everything you have written there…

The former priest could not have convalidated a marriage between two people upon one of which the covenant of a prior marriage was still binding, so the priest who told you this is assuming that everything was taken care of when the convalidation of your current marriage was performed.

I am the RCIA instructor–I told the Catholic and the non-Catholic they needed to see our current priest about annulment of the 1st marriage so that the non-Catholic could be received into the Church. I also wrote a clear letter to the priest explaining the situation (communication lines in our parish are not very good ).

The couple met with the priest and then called me to tell me that Father said all was fine for Easter Vigil–they were very happy, but really didn’t explain the reasoning except to say that it has to do with what the former priest had done–I don’t think they really understand it–they are just very happy that the non-Catholic can come into the Church this Easter.

Any ideas? I feel a burden here and don’t know what to do or if I have any responsibility weighing on me.

 

[kage_ar]

Either the couple is validly married or they are not. There is no way one could be okay dokey and the other person not be.

The best advice is to contact the Office of the Tribunal at your Diocese and ask them to look into the situation (you can locate your Diocese from the USCCB.org web site if you are in the USA).

 

[passus]

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were the RCIA instructor.

If you are still concerned about it, then as the RCIA instructor, you should be able to call the priest and discuss the matter with him. Let him know that the couple’s first marriage hasn’t been annulled. The only thing I can think of is that he might know something you don’t know or the story got mixed up along the way (admittedly, it’s very complicated) and that little detail is what’s making the difference between invalid and everyone being “very happy.”

 

[SMHW]

I know it’s not the usual circumstances for which one thinks such things can be obtained, but is it possible the non-Catholic was able to have his first marriage (which would not have been sacramental) to be dissolved via a Petrine Privilege?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Sounds to me like the first priest applied the “internal forum solution”.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Here’s the details…

A baptised non-Catholic person seeking to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church was married to an unbaptised person in a Protestant church wedding, but subsequently obtained a divorce.

The former spouse of the non-Catholic is still living.

The Candidate married a Catholic in a Protestant church wedding.

The Candidate was not ready to obtain an annulment, but the Catholic spouse wished to have the marriage “blessed” so that the Catholic could receive communion (unsure if this was actually a convalidation ???).

Priest performed some rite, and the Catholic participates fully in liturgy.

Non-Catholic spouse now wants to become Catholic this Easter. There is a new priest at the parish who has told the couple that an annulment of the first marriage is not necessary for the non-Catholic to receive the sacraments this Easter based upon the actions of the former priest.

How can this be correct?

It is possible with what was posted that the first priest did in fact have the impediment perventing a valid Marriage removed. One would have to look into the details.

 

[st_felicity]

Either the couple is validly married or they are not. There is no way one could be okay dokey and the other person not be.

you’re right --even a radical sanation wouldn’t be correct in this case.

The best advice is to contact the Office of the Tribunal at your Diocese and ask them to look into the situation (you can locate your Diocese from the USCCB.org web site if you are in the USA).

The couple is unclear on the matter–the non-Catholic told me personally at the time of the “blessing” that s/he was not ready to go through with an annulment, but now that person tells me that it was “taken care of.”

I suppose it’s possible that the former priest took all the information (because the non-Catholic did fill out the annulment paperwork) and sent it through the Tribunal so that an actual convalidation could take place and never fully informed the couple. I don’t want to go too far before exhausting the local sources of information. I will try to get this answered with our priest. He is just NOT very easy to get a hold of and he will be unavailable for some time beginning this Sunday.

 

[Tsion]

JMJ

Because the Christian married a non-Christian, that marriage is not valid.

The Catholic and Catholic-to-be, needs to get the marriage con-validated.

Now, they need a special dispensation from the bishop. Then the Catholic-to-be can be fully received into the Church.

I would call your marriage tribunal. I went through this myself.

 

[st_felicity]

It is possible with what was posted that the first priest did in fact have the impediment perventing a valid Marriage removed. One would have to look into the details.

That’s what I’m thinking…just an uninformed couple…see my post above. Thanks.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I am the RCIA instructor–I told the Catholic and the non-Catholic they needed to see our current priest about annulment of the 1st marriage so that the non-Catholic could be received into the Church. I also wrote a clear letter to the priest explaining the situation (communication lines in our parish are not very good ).

The couple met with the priest and then called me to tell me that Father said all was fine for Easter Vigil–they were very happy, but really didn’t explain the reasoning except to say that it has to do with what the former priest had done–I don’t think they really understand it–they are just very happy that the non-Catholic can come into the Church this Easter.

Any ideas? I feel a burden here and don’t know what to do or if I have any responsibility weighing on me.

You have no burden or responsibility in the matter. The Pastor has made his decision. You can ask to discuss this with him, but not with the people involved. He can choose to discuss it with you or not.

 

[st_felicity]

THE most DIFFICULT thing in the RCIA ministry is dealing with marriage issues IMO. So many people get so very hurt–and one has to be clear and yet delicate in addressing these things. Second is the birth control issue.

 

[KLIBERA]

I Think Annulment Stuff Is For The Birds & Just An Indication Of Some Of The Flaws Of The Catholic Church Because Annulments Cost Money & Are Big Business. Jesus Welcomed Matthew To His Discipleship, He Did Not Shun Him. Unfortunatley, To Deprive Divorced Catholics Of A Place In The Church Is A Little Extreme & One Reason Why They Have Lost People. The Goal Is To Shepherd Lost Sheep, Not Shame Them & Make Money Off Them. Why Was It So Easy For Joe Kennedy Iii To Get An Annulment After His Divorce. He Had Twin Sons. How Can You Say That Marriage Did Not Exist. His Ex Fought In On Those Grounds. Joe Like Many Politicians Had An Affair With His Secretary Whom He Then Married. His Purpose For Annulment Was Seen As Political & To Ensure That He Gets A Catholic Funeral. Shame On Him. The Church Gave In, Which Exposes Their Own Bias & Flaws. The Church Knows That All The Kennedy Family Had To Do Was Put Up Enough Money To Satisfy Them.

 

[st_felicity]

You have no burden or responsibility in the matter. The Pastor has made his decision. You can ask to discuss this with him, but not with the people involved. He can choose to discuss it with you or not.

Thank you so much! I’ve been a member for a while and I used to post a lot–but not much lately. I remember you from back when, and I always thought you had solid commentary. I appreciate your saying this because as the instructor, I do feel like I’m giving birth each Easter and I worry about the participants and also my role.

Thanks again.

 

[Tsion]

I Think Annulment Stuff Is For The Birds & Just An Indication Of Some Of The Flaws Of The Catholic Church Because Annulments Cost Money & Are Big Business. Jesus Welcomed Matthew To His Discipleship, He Did Not Shun Him. Unfortunatley, To Deprive Divorced Catholics Of A Place In The Church Is A Little Extreme & One Reason Why They Have Lost People. The Goal Is To Shepherd Lost Sheep, Not Shame Them & Make Money Off Them. Why Was It So Easy For Joe Kennedy Iii To Get An Annulment After His Divorce. He Had Twin Sons. How Can You Say That Marriage Did Not Exist. His Ex Fought In On Those Grounds. Joe Like Many Politicians Had An Affair With His Secretary Whom He Then Married. His Purpose For Annulment Was Seen As Political & To Ensure That He Gets A Catholic Funeral. Shame On Him. The Church Gave In, Which Exposes Their Own Bias & Flaws. The Church Knows That All The Kennedy Family Had To Do Was Put Up Enough Money To Satisfy Them.

JMJ

Then you are not in full alignment with Mother Church and are Protestant. Annulments have a purpose and I would read the CCC.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Thank you so much! I’ve been a member for a while and I used to post a lot–but not much lately. I remember you from back when, and I always thought you had solid commentary. I appreciate your saying this because as the instructor, I do feel like I’m giving birth each Easter and I worry about the participants and also my role.

Thanks again.

I know what you mean, I’ve been there many time myself. It is important however to remember specifically what our roles are. As RCIA directors we are not pastors, and do not carry their responsibility.

 

[1ke]

JMJ

Because the Christian married a non-Christian, that marriage is not valid.

This is not accurate. A baptized non-Cathoilc can indeed validly marry an unbaptized person. So can a Catholic who receives a dispensation for disparity of cult.

The marriage is valid, it is not a *sacrament * since one of the spouses is not baptized.

 

[Tsion]

This is not accurate. A baptized non-Cathoilc can indeed validly marry an unbaptized person. So can a Catholic who receives a dispensation for disparity of cult.

The marriage is valid, it is not a *sacrament * since one of the spouses is not baptized.

JMJ

If this is true, then I was wrong. Thank you for the clarification. I would still encourage a phone call to the marriage tribunal though.