Separated/Divorced and celibate

[BlindSheep]

I thought that someone who was seperated or had a civil divorce, but lived a chaste lifestyle and did not remarry was allowed to go to communion (depending on the reason for the separation), but this thread in ask an apologist forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=99086
has me confused about this. Specifically, if a wife is abused by her husband and moves out, but then lives a celibate life style, is she in a state of mortal sin? Or is someone who is applying for an annulment in a state of mortal sin?

 

[teresa613]

If you are divorced without being remarried or in a non-platonic relationship, you are excluded from the sacraments.

If you are only divorced, you are not excluded but I think they still advise a confession prior to taken part in the sacraments because in any divorce there are short comings/sins involved.

the post is misleading. I think the apologist assumed that the person asking is in a relationship and wants to get married before the annulment is through. On the other hand why should you ask, if you didn’t have the guy you want to get married to…

I am in a similar situation, waiting for my divorce getting finalised, then I can file for annulment and with God’s help I might be able to be admitted to the sacraments in a few years…

Brigitte

 

[BlindSheep]

teresa613:

If you are divorced without being remarried or in a non-platonic relationship, you are excluded from the sacraments.

If you are only divorced, you are not excluded but I think they still advise a confession prior to taken part in the sacraments because in any divorce there are short comings/sins involved.

Now I’m even more confused! Isn’t “only divorced” the same thing as “divorced without being remarried”?

 

[cameron_lansing]

I thought that someone who was seperated or had a civil divorce, but lived a chaste lifestyle and did not remarry was allowed to go to communion (depending on the reason for the separation). . .

Other things being equal, such as being in a state of grace and not being under a penalty, this is correct.

It would be incorrect to say, " If you are divorced without being remarried or in a non-platonic relationship, you are excluded from the sacraments." The law of the Church does not say that. It does not impose a penalty which prohibits receiving the sacraments on the basis of civil divorce.

but this thread in ask an apologist forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=99086
has me confused about this.

The key might be in this part of the response by the apologist. “At the present you are not allowed to receive Holy Communion until you are married in the Church—unless you live a celibate life-style.”

This merely emphasizes that sexual intimacy, properly expressed (add everything you know about the openness to new life from magisterial teaching here) can only take place within a valid marriage according to divine law and Catholic belief based on divine law.

Any other expression would involve objectively grave sin.

That would be the case in the possibility that the original poster inquired of the apologist — a remarriage without an “annulment” and which would be invalid since it could not be celebrated in the Catholic Church. In such a situation, sexual intimacy would involve objectively grave sin

Specifically, if a wife is abused by her husband and moves out, but then lives a celibate life style, is she in a state of mortal sin?

The Church permits separation, even on a permanent basis, in certain cases of grave danger to oneself or children. So taken on that basis alone, we would have no reason to suspect an objective state of mortal sin.

The Church allows the innocent spouse to separate, even permanently, in the case of adultery. To effect permanent separation does involve civil divorce.

However, in the case of grave danger, when it passes, the couple is to reconcile.

The grave danger though may never pass in the case of true mental illnesses, substance abuse, etc., so there is that possibility of permanent separation. In the case of adultery, the Church wishes to urge forgiveness and reconciliation, but does not compel reconciliation in its law.

Or is someone who is applying for an annulment in a state of mortal sin?

By itself, asking for a tribunal to investigate the nullity of a marriage so that a person can know his or her status in the Church would not present a sinful act.

The person might have behaved during or after the common life in such a way to commit mortal sin, but that would be a separate issue.

The documentation for denying Holy Communion in cases of civil divorce and remarriage without “anulment” or dissolution can be found at vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html.

 

[teresa613]

Sorry,

Don’t get mixed up with “terminology”.

You can be divorced and have a new partner, not have a new partner, living together, only dating… - that does not make you “remarried” technically.

Technically there 's no re-marriage in the eyes of the church…as it’s either only secular or a protestant church.

Brigitte

 

[Dan-Man916]

Blindsheep,

Here is what the person asked in that thread you referenced:

Now, I look forward to being remarried while being a renewed Catholic. Is it it ok to remarry while waiting on an annullment and have our marriage blessed once the annullment is finalized?

That is the problem. You can’t get re-married without a decree of nullity and receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Why are you confused. There is no chastity or celibacy here. The person wants to get re-married. That assumes a marital sexual relationship.

I think you misunderstood the question because Fr. Serpa’s response assumed that they would be getting married before the decree of nullity. He was answering from that perspective.

 

[Mike_D30]

How did Tommy Mattola re-marry in St. Patricks?

Are the Church rules hard and fast, or do they bend if you give the Church $500,000?

It bother’s me the Church can require some folks stay celibate and never re-marry, or even apparently even if they remain celibate they can’t partake in communion with the rest of the parishoner’s.

Why can the rich like Tommy Mattola just buck up and beat the system so easily?

I’m Catholic but this bother’s me, it’s like two seperate Churches. One for the haves, and one for the have nots.

Why would Mattola’s wedding to Mariah Carry ever be invalid to get annuled? They were married for like 8 years or something.

Mattola was married before TWICE! he converted to Judaism also, but he’s free to marry in the nicest Cathedral in New York, possibly the United States. Isn’t this just making a mockery of the Catholic Church?

While others suffer terrible loneliness, Tommy Mattola apparently can marry at will as many times as he wants, all with the Churches blessing.

This disturbs me.

 

[Dan-Man916]

I know someone who received a decree of nullity in about a year and they didn’t pay anything for it.

 

[jrabs]

Mike_D30:

How did Tommy Mattola re-marry in St. Patricks?

Are the Church rules hard and fast, or do they bend if you give the Church $500,000?

It bother’s me the Church can require some folks stay celibate and never re-marry, or even apparently even if they remain celibate they can’t partake in communion with the rest of the parishoner’s.

Why can the rich like Tommy Mattola just buck up and beat the system so easily?

I’m Catholic but this bother’s me, it’s like two seperate Churches. One for the haves, and one for the have nots.

Why would Mattola’s wedding to Mariah Carry ever be invalid to get annuled? They were married for like 8 years or something.

Mattola was married before TWICE! he converted to Judaism also, but he’s free to marry in the nicest Cathedral in New York, possibly the United States. Isn’t this just making a mockery of the Catholic Church?

While others suffer terrible loneliness, Tommy Mattola apparently can marry at will as many times as he wants, all with the Churches blessing.

This disturbs me.

Oh stop your rant that has nothing to do with this OP. This does not help her out. :tsktsk: Start your own thread and leave BlindSheep to hers.

If you are divorced or separated and living a celibate lifestyle, you may receive.

 

[teresa613]

Dan-Man916:

I know someone who received a decree of nullity in about a year and they didn’t pay anything for it.

Let’s hope so,
I heard they charge $1000 in Boston.

Brigitte

 

[Mike_D30]

jrabs:

Oh stop your rant that has nothing to do with this OP. This does not help her out. :tsktsk: Start your own thread and leave BlindSheep to hers.

If you are divorced or separated and living a celibate lifestyle, you may receive.

Thanks Dad…

J/K

But seriously who made you the board patriarch?

I did submit this question to ask an apologist, but in thinking about it, it gets me a bit steemed. Why can only the wealthy be allowed to divorce and re-marry? What’s that all about?

BTW it appears the original questioned has been answered, so mayb the topic can deviate a bit into annulment proceedings. If the people don’t want to they won’t answer.

 

[jrabs]

Mike_D30:

Thanks Dad…

J/K

But seriously who made you the board patriarch?

Hijacking a thread is never appropriate, son.

Love,
Dad

 

[1ke]

Mike_D30:

How did Tommy Mattola re-marry in St. Patricks? Are the Church rules hard and fast, or do they bend if you give the Church $500,000?

Every Catholic is equal before Church Law. Each person has an equal opportunity to present their case before a tribunal. Decrees of nullity are issued on their merits, not based on who the petitioner is.

Mike_D30:

It bother’s me the Church can require some folks stay celibate and never re-marry,

Christ established the Sacraments, the Church merely administers them. The Church is not free to change the Sacrament of marriage which is exclusive and for life. The church does not require anyone to “never remarry”. The person makes that promise when they marry.

Mike_D30:

or even apparently even if they remain celibate they can’t partake in communion with the rest of the parishoner’s.

This is inaccuate. They may receive Communion if they are not in an invalid or extramarital sexual relationship.

Mike_D30:

Why can the rich like Tommy Mattola just buck up and beat the system so easily?

I’m certain you are not on the tribunal that decided his case, and therefore cannot make such a statement as if it were fact. You do not know the merits of his case. If he received a decree of nullity he did not “beat the system” and it was not “easily” come by. The tribunal process is thorough and complex.

Mike_D30:

I’m Catholic but this bother’s me, it’s like two seperate Churches. One for the haves, and one for the have nots.

Where is your proof? Please provide your evidence. You are basically talking as if something is fact that you have fabricated in your mind.

Of the thousands of Catholics who receive annulments each year, I’m sure the “have nots” that are not famous and do not get on E! television make up 99.9% of annulment petitions.

Mike_D30:

Why would Mattola’s wedding to Mariah Carry ever be invalid to get annuled? They were married for like 8 years or something.

You clearly lack an understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage and the entire decree of nullity process. The number of years a person was married has no bearing on the Sacramentality and validity of that marriage. There are numerous reasons that the marriage may have been invalid. Clearly the tribunal found merit in the case if you have represented the facts accurately.

If you would like to understand this entire subject better, I highly recommend you get the book Annulment: The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster. It will answer your questions very thoroughly.

Mike_D30:

Mattola was married before TWICE! he converted to Judaism also, but he’s free to marry in the nicest Cathedral in New York, possibly the United States. Isn’t this just making a mockery of the Catholic Church?

No it does not make a mockery of the Church. I do not know much at all about Tony Mattola, his religion or to whom he has been married. But, none of that is relevant. If he is determined free to marry through the tribunal process then he can marry at any Catholic Church he would like. You seem to be obsessed that he married in a Catholic Church. Perhaps he is Jewish and his bride is Catholic. I don’t know, I don’t care. You are making inaccurate and false accusations against the church, and that I do care about.

Mike_D30:

While others suffer terrible loneliness, Tommy Mattola apparently can marry at will as many times as he wants, all with the Churches blessing.

This disturbs me.

Each person is equal before Church Law. Each person has the ability to petition the tribunal to examine their marriage. Some will be found to be valid, others will be found to be invalid.

All the Church can do is make the determination whether a valid marriage existed. The Divine Law regarding indisoluability of a valid marriage is not for the Church to change.

 

[1ke]

Mike_D30:

Why can only the wealthy be allowed to divorce and re-marry? What’s that all about?

Why is it you think that “only the wealthy” can receive a decree of nullity? Where is your proof? Where is this odd idea of yours coming from?

Of the thousands of decrees of nullity issued each year, almost all of them are for “average Joes” – not for rich and famous people.

 

[Corki]

jrabs:

Hijacking a thread is never appropriate, son.

Love,
Dad

And might even get you in trouble with Moderator Mom.

 

[Mike_D30]

1ke:

Why is it you think that “only the wealthy” can receive a decree of nullity? Where is your proof? Where is this odd idea of yours coming from?

Of the thousands of decrees of nullity issued each year, almost all of them are for “average Joes” – not for rich and famous people.

My aunt (God bless her she just passed away), had five kids with a man who beat her weekly, did heavy narcotics, and was a drunk and even did worse things (and was rumored to worship the devil if you believe that one, I was young when they split this is what I’ve heard). She was denied an annulment. I don’t know the specifics but I’m guessing that it was because they were married 18 years and had children. She never remarried, and lived the next 23 years of her life very lonely, then recently passed on.

Tommy Mattola gave up his faith and became Jewish, marries and divorces two different times, yet somehow he waltzes into St. Patrick’s Cathedral and recieves the Churches blessing for a third marriage.

I’m not indicting the Catholic Church as a whole, but whoever was involved in the blessing Mr. Mattolla’s THIRD marriage to me is wrong.

I don’t mean to hi-jack the thread. The original question was answered a bunch of times. I’ll stop posting on this thread to not hi-jack it.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

BlindSheep:

I thought that someone who was seperated or had a civil divorce, but lived a chaste lifestyle and did not remarry was allowed to go to communion (depending on the reason for the separation), but this thread in ask an apologist forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=99086
has me confused about this. Specifically, if a wife is abused by her husband and moves out, but then lives a celibate life style, is she in a state of mortal sin? Or is someone who is applying for an annulment in a state of mortal sin?

Yes that is correct being divorced especially the innocent party is not kept from the Sacraments because of the divorce.

Being divorced or seeking an annulment is not in itself a mortal sin.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Mike_D30:

My aunt (God bless her she just passed away), had five kids with a man who beat her weekly, did heavy narcotics, and was a drunk and even did worse things (and was rumored to worship the devil if you believe that one, I was young when they split this is what I’ve heard). She was denied an annulment. I don’t know the specifics but I’m guessing that it was because they were married 18 years and had children. She never remarried, and lived the next 23 years of her life very lonely, then recently passed on.

Tommy Mattola gave up his faith and became Jewish, marries and divorces two different times, yet somehow he waltzes into St. Patrick’s Cathedral and recieves the Churches blessing for a third marriage.

I’m not indicting the Catholic Church as a whole, but whoever was involved in the blessing Mr. Mattolla’s THIRD marriage to me is wrong.

I don’t mean to hi-jack the thread. The original question was answered a bunch of times. I’ll stop posting on this thread to not hi-jack it.

This does sound like a grave injustice.
There should be accountability for these controversial decisions when others like this person’s aunt are denied. Did he just waltz in? Were his past marriages invalid? Who knows? How can you find out? Is that a public document (the decision to allow/not allow someone to marry)?

Chastity, properly seen, can be a blessing as well as a freedom and a virtue (Yes, I am single and know it can be a struggle too). Your aunt may have been much better off spiritually than you think.

 

[1ke]

Mike_D30:

My aunt (God bless her she just passed away), had five kids with a man who beat her weekly, did heavy narcotics, and was a drunk and even did worse things (and was rumored to worship the devil if you believe that one, I was young when they split this is what I’ve heard). She was denied an annulment. I don’t know the specifics

That is correct, you do not know the specifics. I am very sorry that your aunt’s husband abused her. She had every right to leave the situation and seek civil disolution of her marriage.

If she petitioned for an annulment and the marriage was found valid, it was based on the facts and the situation at the time of the marriage. A marriage is valid or invalid at the time consent is given-- validity does not depend on subsequent actions on the part of either person.

Mike_D30:

but I’m guessing that it was because they were married 18 years and had children. She never remarried, and lived the next 23 years of her life very lonely, then recently passed on.

A decree of nullity is not based on duration of the marriage or whether or not children are born of the marriage. The tribunal examines the consent at the time the marriage took place. Therefore, your aunt’s marriage was not declared valid for the reasons you posit.

Mike_D30:

Tommy Mattola gave up his faith and became Jewish, marries and divorces two different times, yet somehow he waltzes into St. Patrick’s Cathedral and recieves the Churches blessing for a third marriage.

I do not know his situation and particulars and would not care to speculate other than to state that I can see several very good reasons that the church would have declared the prior marriages null just based on your two sentences.

Mike_D30:

I’m not indicting the Catholic Church as a whole, but whoever was involved in the blessing Mr. Mattolla’s THIRD marriage to me is wrong.

If he was declared free to marry by a church tribunal then no the person what not “wrong”. It would be something altogether different if he attempted marriage without a decree of nullity and a priest were complicit.

Mike_D30:

I don’t mean to hi-jack the thread. The original question was answered a bunch of times. I’ll stop posting on this thread to not hi-jack it.

I don’t mind. I think many people are very confused by annulments, and I do really recommend that you get the book by Michael Smith Foster that I suggested, it’s quite good and easy to read.