Remarriage and Sacraments

[sanmai]

Hi,

This is my first post, so apologies for anything inappropriate. I’d like to know the Church’s teaching on my situation.

I was not brought up Christian, and I am divorced from a marriage that took place in an Episcopal church. I remarried a woman who was baptised Catholic, but was married in a Presbyterian church and is also divorced. Her Catholic attitudes have greatly affected me, and I recently legally adopted her daughter.

After a long spiritual journey, I would love to become Catholic and she would love to rejoin the Church. But we are both divorced.

Questions:

• Can I become a Catholic after my divorce? (I guess my wife always was and always will be?)
• Can divorced people like us receive the Eucharist if we were received into the Church?

Many thanks for your help.

 

[1ke]

Both of you need to make an appointment with a local parish priest and lay out all the facts. There are many variables that must be examined regarding both prior marriages. This isn’t a question that can be answered here.

In order for her to reconcile with the Church and for you to convert, you will both have to deal with your first marriages through the tribunal (decree of nullity) process. If your first marriages are found to be null, then you can convalidate your current marriage.

You need to go see the priest and take this one step at a time.

 

[sanmai]

Thanks for your reply. I just looked up “annulment” on ewtn.com because I was unfamiliar with it.

Annulment seems like a very difficult process involving two dioceses.

On the wedding day of my first marriage, I did not intend to have children. Mental illness (mine) was a major factor contributing to the divorce. I suppose it would be easy to provide evidence of the latter. I certainly WANTED it to be a lifelong marriage!

My wife divorced her first husband because he was violent, abusive, and threatened the life of one of their children.

 

[1ke]

Thanks for your reply. I just looked up “annulment” on ewtn.com because I was unfamiliar with it.

Annulment seems like a very difficult process involving two dioceses.

On the wedding day of my first marriage, I did not intend to have children. Mental illness (mine) was a major factor contributing to the divorce. I suppose it would be easy to provide evidence of the latter. I certainly WANTED it to be a lifelong marriage!

My wife divorced her first husband because he was violent, abusive, and threatened the life of one of their children.

 

[LaSainte]

If your wife was Catholic but married in another church, chances are that her first marriage was invalid. A Catholic needs to be married in the Catholic church to be considered valid I believe. Your marriage may be invalid because of the mental illness…I’m not sure about the intention never to have kids from a non-Catholic marriage point of view. In the Catholic church that would be grounds for a decree of nullity generally.

 

[1ke]

If your wife was Catholic but married in another church, chances are that her first marriage was invalid. A Catholic needs to be married in the Catholic church to be considered valid I believe.

He needs to go talk to the priest. Your above statements are true only if the Catholic did not receive a dispensation from form. But, if she did then the marriage is valid.

 

[manualman]

Welcome, great to hear you are open to the love of Christ and the sanctifying Grace of God.

Please understand that as catholics, we take marriage extremely seriously. It’s not just a committment, nor a contract but a sacred unbreakable bond (in this life anyways). Being imperfect humans, our serious take on marriage manifests itself in a cumbersome process for the examination of a putative marriage if/when the relationship breaks up. It is possible that something was lacking initially such that there never really was an unbreakable bond formed (in spite of the pretty church, white dress and all). But because we take marriage so seriously, we spend a lot of time checking out such claims and helping people to avoid the pitfalls of rationalization and self-delusion (all us humans are pretty good at that, eh?).

My advice is to be patient, speak to a priest and keep in mind that all the bureacracy and paperwork exists precisely because we take marriage so seriously.

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi,

T

Questions:

• Can I become a Catholic after my divorce? (I guess my wife always was and always will be?)
• Can divorced people like us receive the Eucharist if we were received into the Church?

Many thanks for your help.

yes and yes when you have worked with the priest, and those he delegates to help you, come into conformity with Christ’s plan for your life and received his grace in his sacraments.

Make an appointment with the priest, and be completely honest and upfront about the current and previous marriages. Even details you don’t think are important have a bearing on whether or not those marriages were valid, and what steps must be taken to regularize you situation.

Welcome home it is especially exciting when an entire family comes to Christ in this way.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Sanmai,

I’ll tell you what I know from my studies of the matter:

If you were not a baptized Christian when you first got married, and were not a baptized Christian after your divorce, you are free to marry whomever you wish.

Regarding you wife’s first marriage, if she did not obtain a dispensation from the bishop to marry outside the sacred grounds of a Catholic Church, her marriage would be invalid, and her subsequent divorce would be of no import. If she did obtain a dispensation from the bishop, however, then her marriage was valid, and that would present a problem.

Regardless of all these circumstances, if a marriage had occurred before, a Catholic tribunal will always presume in favor of the validity of a marriage, and proceed from there. So you do need to apply for a decree of nullity.

Just make sure to get all your paperwork ready. You will need to provide divorce papers, and an affidavit from the previous spouses that they have no objection to the prior marriage being declared null/invalid. Your wife should also present an affidavit testifying to the fact that she never obtained a dispensation from form from her bishop for her first marriage (a corroborating affidavit from the pastor who performed the ceremony and/or her former spouse will help).

If you have these things already before approaching the tribunal, it should speed up the process considerably. Assuming you are not a baptized Christian, your case is pretty cut and dried and should be resolved rather quickly. Your wife is another matter.

But let me give you some advice. Assuming you are not a baptized Christian, if you approach the tribunal expressing your intention to become Catholic, the tribunal may treat your wife’s case as an issue of the Petrine privilege instead of a decree of nullity, which may (likely) or may not speed up the process for your wife. If you go this route, have on hand a sworn affidavit of your status as an unbaptized non-Christian (even affidavits from your parents or relatives). The tribunal may not require it and just take your word for it during the postulations, but have it ready just in case.

As to your questions:

• Yes, of course you can become Catholic despite your prior divorce. There should be no question if you are unbaptized. However ---- I seem to recall a case similar to yours, and the parish priest actually delayed the convert’s reception into the Church until his marriage issue was settled. My advice would be to start the process with the tribunal even before you enter RCIA.
• As far as communion, in case your case is not yet settled after you have been received into the Church, speak to the parish priest.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi,

This is my first post, so apologies for anything inappropriate. I’d like to know the Church’s teaching on my situation.

I was not brought up Christian, and I am divorced from a marriage that took place in an Episcopal church. I remarried a woman who was baptised Catholic, but was married in a Presbyterian church and is also divorced. Her Catholic attitudes have greatly affected me, and I recently legally adopted her daughter.

After a long spiritual journey, I would love to become Catholic and she would love to rejoin the Church. But we are both divorced.

Questions:

• Can I become a Catholic after my divorce? (I guess my wife always was and always will be?)
• Can divorced people like us receive the Eucharist if we were received into the Church?

Many thanks for your help.

 

[1ke]

If you were not a baptized Christian when you first got married, and were not a baptized Christian after your divorce, you are free to marry whomever you wish.

This is not correct.

Just make sure to get all your paperwork ready. You will need to provide divorce papers, and an affidavit from the previous spouses that they have no objection to the prior marriage being declared null/invalid. Your wife should also present an affidavit testifying to the fact that she never obtained a dispensation from form from her bishop for her first marriage (a corroborating affidavit from the pastor who performed the ceremony and/or her former spouse will help).

This isn’t accurate information either. It is best that the OP go talk to the priest directly before starting to gather paperwork and testimony or affidavits from people. You are steering the OP down the wrong path on several counts here.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother 1ke,

This is not correct.

How so?

This isn’t accurate information either. It is best that the OP go talk to the priest directly before starting to gather paperwork and testimony or affidavits from people. You are steering the OP down the wrong path on several counts here.

What are these “several counts?” Please specify.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[1ke]

Dear brother 1ke,

I’m a sister, not a brother. Just FYI.

How so?

You stated that if the OP was unbaptized before/after their marriage they are free to marry anyone they choose. This is NOT correct.

The marriages of non-Catholics, and non-baptized persons, are valid. The Church does not consider them free to marry others. An unbaptized person who has been married/divorced would have to have grounds for nullity just like anyone else. They would have to go through the tribunal process to determine freedom to marry. Their marriage might be found null or it might be found valid.

The unbaptized who have valid marriages may have recourse to the Pauline or Petrine Privilege. But, they must meet the criteria for those, and it is still a formal process that must be conducted before a determination of freedom to marry is made.

So, the unbaptized are not free to marry, divorce, and remarry.

What are these “several counts?” Please specify.

The OP does not provide *an affidavit from the previous spouses that they have no objection to the prior marriage being declared null/invalid. *

The OP’s wife does not provide an affidavit testifying to the fact that she never obtained a dispensation from form from her bishop for her first marriage (a corroborating affidavit from the pastor who performed the ceremony and/or her former spouse will help).

This statement is not accurate: Assuming you are not a baptized Christian, your case is pretty cut and dried and should be resolved rather quickly.

Since the items above are not things the OP provides to the tribunal, this statement is also misleading: If you have these things already before approaching the tribunal, it should speed up the process considerably.

There certainly are some paperwork items the OP provides, but he needs to wait for direction from the tribunal. Also, sacramental records must have the parish seal and records might only be accepted directly from the parish and must have been issued within a certain timeframe based on the date of the nullity petition, so obtaining them early might be pointless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Ike,

You stated that if the OP was unbaptized before/after their marriage they are free to marry anyone they choose. This is NOT correct.

The marriages of non-Catholics, and non-baptized persons, are valid. The Church does not consider them free to marry others. An unbaptized person who has been married/divorced would have to have grounds for nullity just like anyone else. They would have to go through the tribunal process to determine freedom to marry. Their marriage might be found null or it might be found valid.

The unbaptized who have valid marriages may have recourse to the Pauline or Petrine Privilege. But, they must meet the criteria for those, and it is still a formal process that must be conducted before a determination of freedom to marry is made.

So, the unbaptized are not free to marry, divorce, and remarry.

A person who is not a member of the Church nor intends to be a member of the Church is not bound by the laws of the Catholic Church. That’s what I meant. It was only an introductory sentence as a generality. It was just a lead up to what I specified in my fourth paragraph, which is what you state here currently.

The OP does not provide an affidavit from the previous spouses that they have no objection to the prior marriage being declared null/invalid.
It seems you have some knowledge of the process, so you probably know that this will most likely be required. I have read of cases where the process was unduly delayed because it was difficult to obtain the previous spouse’s approval. If such preparation can help, why would you object to it?

The OP’s wife does not provide an affidavit testifying to the fact that she never obtained a dispensation from form from her bishop for her first marriage (a corroborating affidavit from the pastor who performed the ceremony and/or her former spouse will help).

Discovery on this fact will most certainly be required for a decree of nullity. Again, if the OP can prepare for it, why would you advise otherwise?

This statement is not accurate: Assuming you are not a baptized Christian, your case is pretty cut and dried and should be resolved rather quickly.

Why? Or do you seriously think that by “quickly,” I meant to indicate that it would be resolved within a day or two, or even a week or a month? It’s just a fact that a non-baptized person has less hurdles to overcome during the process than a baptized person.

Since the items above are not things the OP provides to the tribunal, this statement is also misleading: If you have these things already before approaching the tribunal, it should speed up the process considerably.

Those are things which he WILL need to provide, so I don’t see why he can’t prepare beforehand. Why should he not start a process of discovery (that takes time) now, instead of later? That seems like an overly legalistic outlook on the matter. If you are suggesting he should not just hand these papers over when he first approaches the tribunal, I agree. But if you are suggesting that it is wrong for him to prepare, then I definitely disagree.

There certainly are some paperwork items the OP provides, but he needs to wait for direction from the tribunal.

Why does he need to wait for the tribunal to tell him to start on processes that are sure to occur?

Also, sacramental records must have the parish seal and records might only be accepted directly from the parish and must have been issued within a certain timeframe based on the date of the nullity petition, so obtaining them early might be pointless.

Which is why I did not mention that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[1ke]

A person who is not a member of the Church nor intends to be a member of the Church is not bound by the laws of the Catholic Church. That’s what I meant. It was only an introductory sentence as a generality. It was just a lead up to what I specified in my fourth paragraph, which is what you state here currently.

They are not bound by ecclesial requirements. But, God’s law on marriage applies to all, whether they accept or reject God and his Church.

A person who is validly married cannot marry another.

It seems you have some knowledge of the process, so you probably know that this will most likely be required.

No, it is not the case at all. The basis of a nullity petition is not whether or not the respondent “agrees” or “disagrees.” The respondent need not even participate.

I have read of cases where the process was unduly delayed because it was difficult to obtain the previous spouse’s approval. If such preparation can help, why would you object to it?

The nullity process is not dependent upon the previous spouse’s “approval” nor their participation. They are asked to participate but it is not required. Whether the previous spouse “approves” or not is irrelevant. A decree of nullity is not based on the desire of either party, but rather on the existence of an impediment.

Discovery on this fact will most certainly be required for a decree of nullity. Again, if the OP can prepare for it, why would you advise otherwise?

The canonical form or lack of it is not determined by an affidavit of the parties. It is determined from sacramental records.

Why? Or do you seriously think that by “quickly,” I meant to indicate that it would be resolved within a day or two, or even a week or a month?

Since none of the paperwork you are suggesting that the OP run around and obtain is in any way relevant, it does nothing to speed the case along.

It’s just a fact that a non-baptized person has less hurdles to overcome during the process than a baptized person.

It is not a fact at all. An unbaptized person seeking a decree of nullity goes through the exact same process as a baptized person.

Those are things which he WILL need to provide, so I don’t see why he can’t prepare beforehand.

The things you have suggested he provide are things he does **not **provide. The only thing you suggested that he obtain that is something he actually does provide is the marriage license and divorce decree. But, again, he should wait until isntructed because the diocese may have specific instructions to follow.

Why does he need to wait for the tribunal to tell him to start on processes that are sure to occur?

Because I think it is a waste of time to obtain affidavits and paperwork that is not relevant to the process and possibly obtaining sacramental records only to find them of no use.

An affidavit is not the correct thing to give regarding lack of canonical form. It is the sacramental records that are required.

Most dioceses do not accept sacramental records from the petitioner directly, as they can be forged. The diocese requires the sacramental records come from the parish to the diocese directly, and they request the records at the appropriate time.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Ike,

They are not bound by ecclesial requirements. But, God’s law on marriage applies to all, whether they accept or reject God and his Church.

A person who is validly married cannot marry another.

A person who has divorced, and has not been raised in the Church, and who does not know the laws of God is morally free to marry. If he was aware of the Laws of God, then he would not be morally free to marry.

In any case, I admit I mistakenly assumed the OP’s former spouse remarried, which would then make him free to marry both morally and canonically.

If the OP is reading this, if your former spouse is remarried, you are automatically free to marry because of the Pauline privilege applied to your former spouse. All you need to do is provide a notarized copy of the marriage certificate from your former spouse, or a copy of the marriage certificate with an affidavit from your former spouse that she is remarried.

No, it is not the case at all. The basis of a nullity petition is not whether or not the respondent “agrees” or “disagrees.” The respondent need not even participate.

The reason it is deemed that the participation of the former spouse is not necessary is only because the Church recognizes that there may be a case where the former spouse simply refuses to participate, or is practically impossible to reach. The Church understands that the process should not be impeded just for that reason. But normatively, the (name removed by moderator)ut of the former spouse is otherwise required, specifically to help determine whether the petitioner for nullity truly has the freedom to marry. You may call it a necessity of justice, rather than a necessity of procedure.

The nullity process is not dependent upon the previous spouse’s “approval” nor their participation. They are asked to participate but it is not required. Whether the previous spouse “approves” or not is irrelevant. A decree of nullity is not based on the desire of either party, but rather on the existence of an impediment.

It is only their participation that is not required, for the reason explained above. But their approval is part of the process. The approval has nothing to do with desire, but to help determine that the petitioner for nullity is truly free to marry. If it is, for some reason or other, impossible to obtain the former spouse’s participation, approval is considered implied (“approval” might not be the best word to use).

The canonical form or lack of it is not determined by an affidavit of the parties. It is determined from sacramental records.

Actually, invalidity due to lack of form is determined by the bishop and need not even go through tribunal. Since the procedure of discovery in this case is informal, affidavits can indeed be one of the ways that a bishop determines whether lack of form existed. Besides, what “sacramental records” are you talking about?

Since none of the paperwork you are suggesting that the OP run around and obtain is in any way relevant, it does nothing to speed the case along.

Yes, they are relevant.

It is not a fact at all. An unbaptized person seeking a decree of nullity goes through the exact same process as a baptized person.

Not exactly. Actually, the more I think about it, if the OP’s former spouse is not remarried, then the OP should probably apply for the Petrine privilege instead of a decree of nullity.

But, again, he should wait until isntructed because the diocese may have specific instructions to follow.

Because I think it is a waste of time to obtain affidavits and paperwork that is not relevant to the process and possibly obtaining sacramental records only to find them of no use.

He nor his wife need to wait for the diocese to give him specific instruction if they already know what to ask for and what is required (i.e., for the OP, he is either free to marry if his former spouse has remarried, or he should apply for the Petrine privilege; for his wife, she should request a decree of nullity due to the impediment of either lack of form or disparity of cult).

Most dioceses do not accept sacramental records from the petitioner directly, as they can be forged. The diocese requires the sacramental records come from the parish to the diocese directly, and they request the records at the appropriate time.

Again, what possible “sacramental records” could possibly be relevant here since the OP’s wife was not married in the Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[1ke]

A person who has divorced, and has not been raised in the Church, and who does not know the laws of God is morally free to marry. If he was aware of the Laws of God, then he would not be morally free to marry.

What he knows or doesn’t know would apply to culpability of sin.

What he knows or doesn’t know in no way changes the objective reality that he/she is not able to validly contract a second marriage.

In any case, I admit I mistakenly assumed the OP’s former spouse remarried, which would then make him free to marry both morally and canonically.

If the OP is reading this, if your former spouse is remarried, you are automatically free to marry because of the Pauline privilege applied to your former spouse. All you need to do is provide a notarized copy of the marriage certificate from your former spouse, or a copy of the marriage certificate with an affidavit from your former spouse that she is remarried.

This is simply NOT true.

It is only their participation that is not required, for the reason explained above. But their approval is part of the process. The approval has nothing to do with desire, but to help determine that the petitioner for nullity is truly free to marry. If it is, for some reason or other, impossible to obtain the former spouse’s participation, approval is considered implied (“approval” might not be the best word to use).

This simply is NOT true.

Actually, invalidity due to lack of form is determined by the bishop and need not even go through tribunal. Since the procedure of discovery in this case is informal, affidavits can indeed be one of the ways that a bishop determines whether lack of form existed.

In US diocese lack of form declarations are processed by the tribunals. In other parts of the world, there is no paperwork done at all after sacramental records are produced.

Besides, what “sacramental records” are you talking about?

The sacramental records of the Catholic.

Again, what possible “sacramental records” could possibly be relevant here since the OP’s wife was not married in the Church?

The sacramental records of the Catholic.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister 1ke,

What he knows or doesn’t know would apply to culpability of sin.

What he knows or doesn’t know in no way changes the objective reality that he/she is not able to validly contract a second marriage.

A person invincibly ignorant of the law is not capable of transgressing that law. It is not as if invincible ignorance permits him to transgress the law. It’s that the law objectively does not apply to him because of his invincible ignorance.

This is simply NOT true.

Really? Are you aware that if the OP’s former spouse remarried under the Pauline privilege, then the OP’s marriage is naturally dissolved? Are you aware that it is the second marriage itself that dissolves the prior marriage, and not any sort of ecclesiastical decree? If I have misunderstood the marriage laws, please explain. A “simply not true” statement is rather insufficient.

This simply is NOT true.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

In US diocese lack of form declarations are processed by the tribunals. In other parts of the world, there is no paperwork done at all after sacramental records are produced.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. The book I read on the matter related to cases in the U.S. Are you sure there are not variations in procedure within the U.S. itself?

The sacramental records of the Catholic.

So a Catholic who marries outside the Church without dispensation is supposed to have a record of that invalid marriage at which Catholic parish? My question is, if she married outside the Church without the Church’s permission, why would the Church have a record of that?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[1ke]

A person invincibly ignorant of the law is not capable of transgressing that law. It is not as if invincible ignorance permits him to transgress the law. It’s that the law objectively does not apply to him because of his invincible ignorance.

The law still applies to the person.

Really? Are you aware that if the OP’s former spouse remarried under the Pauline privilege, then the OP’s marriage is naturally dissolved? Are you aware that it is the second marriage itself that dissolves the prior marriage, and not any sort of ecclesiastical decree? If I have misunderstood the marriage laws, please explain. A “simply not true” statement is rather insufficient.

There is MUCH more to it that that.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P44.HTM

Yes, the new marriage dissolves the first. BUT, in order to contract the new marriage there is a formal process that must take place first, see the canons.

One cannot simply marry, divorce, and contract a new marriage. They must have completed the canonical proces first and receive permission to marry.

See also this chart:
diocs.org/Portals/1/Documents/Tribunal/Decision_matrix.pdf

Interesting. Thanks for the info. The book I read on the matter related to cases in the U.S. Are you sure there are not variations in procedure within the U.S. itself?

Not that I am aware of. The procedure is the same in the US and Canada. In Europe, there is no paperwork after the sacramental records have been reviewed at the parish level.

So a Catholic who marries outside the Church without dispensation is supposed to have a record of that invalid marriage at which Catholic parish? My question is, if she married outside the Church without the Church’s permission, why would the Church have a record of that?

The marriage license and the divorce decree together with the sacramental records form the basis of the proof for defect of form. A marriage contracted according to canon law is recorded in the sacramental records. If no marriage is recorded in the sacramental records, but proof of a civil marriage exists, this indicates the lack of form. The records are forwarded to the diocese for evaluation and a declaration.

---

I’m finished discussing this. I suggest the OP and wife go see his priest and NOT go off on their own gathering up things without consulting the priest and tribunal.

 

[mardukm]

The law still applies to the person.

To an invincibly ignorant person? No, it doesn’t. As St. Paul says, where there is no law, there is no condemnation. An invincibly ignorant person is in a state as if there is no law. But this is beside the point. As noted, my earlier statement which you criticized was merely a generality to introduce the topic as a lead up to my advice that he still needs to apply for a decree of nullity. Our discussion on this point is just theoretical - and your position is incorrect.

Yes, the new marriage dissolves the first.

Thank you for the admission.

BUT, in order to contract the new marriage there is a formal process that must take place first, see the canons.

Which is why I informed him he still needed to offer proof to the Church. You should read more carefully before making a statement like “That is SIMPLY not true.”

The marriage license and the divorce decree together with the sacramental records form the basis of the proof for defect of form. A marriage contracted according to canon law is recorded in the sacramental records. If no marriage is recorded in the sacramental records, but proof of a civil marriage exists, this indicates the lack of form. The records are forwarded to the diocese for evaluation and a declaration.

That is good advice. May I suggest you just cut to the chase next time someone asks for advice instead of wasting time hurling accusations at others?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I’m finished discussing this. I suggest the OP and wife go see his priest and NOT go off on their own gathering up things without consulting the priest and tribunal.

If someone here can offer advice, I don’t know why you would object to it.

I’m sure our discussion has given the OP a good heads up.

Blessings,
Marduk