I
Inquiringperson
Guest
By marriages outside the church shouldn’t be recognized, do you mean as in the case of two non-catholics marrying each other in front of, say, the Justice of the Peace?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What a Priest Said to the Question, "I Wasn't Married in the Church; Can I Receive Communion?"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Thank you for the link and the information.By marriages outside the church shouldn’t be recognized, do you mean as in the case of two non-catholics marrying each other in front of, say, the Justice of the Peace?
I think the Church should recognize the civil and church marriages of non-Catholics. I do not believe the Church should recognize the civil marriage of two baptized Catholics. Presumably, the Catholics knew the rules of the Church. If two non-Catholics convert, I think they should agree to repeat their vows in front of a deacon or a priest.
H
Horton
Guest
The fees are set at certain amounts. The fees cover some of the cost of running a tribunal office. Those fees can be waived if there is financial hardship. The only other cost to the petitioner is actual cost of postage, copies, fees for certified documents.It’s wrong that people lie in the annulment trial just to get what they want. But they will answer to God when they die (Let us hope they repent). I don’t know what the solution is to stop the lying in the annulment process or if we can even have an efficient solution.
I did hear of a bishop that decided to get rid of the costs of the annulment fee for his diocese. Generally speaking, dioceses ask for a stipend for the annulment tribunal, but the fee can be waived for financial reasons. However, I think making the annulment process free can help stop the impression that you can “pay” for an annulment to be granted, thus making annulments look like a Catholic version of divorce. The first commenter you quoted from Providence Journal, the one who talked about the $1500 fee, may have gotten a different impression of the annulment process if the fee hadn’t been there.
From my understanding, the Church does allow divorced but not remarried people to receive communion if the divorce wasn’t their fault. This document from EWTN sheds more light on the marriage situation and receiving communion, and I don’t feel like summarizing what was in it. ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm
I also agree there seems to be quite a few annulments granted that seem as though they shouldn’t have been. Prior to my conversion I had to go through the process. I wasn’t married at the time nor was I contemplating marriage, but it made sense to get things taken care of. I had been married twice before. My first husband was deceased and my second husband & I divorced. I was actually able to get a decree of freedom due to lack of form. My second husband had a previous presumed valid marriage which made our marriage invalid. Had my first husband lived, I would have considered ours a valid marriage due to all the conditions being met, we were both baptised Christians, free to marry, able to give free consent, married in a church before witnesses. The cost of my petition was only $75 I believe and the cost of getting the documents needed to provide to the tribunal, maybe another $50 or so.
I
ialsop
Guest
It shows a double standard. Catholics MUST be married in the Church but non Catholics dont need to be. Why? If the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church, should not all humanity adhere to the laws of the Church?Well what do you think it says?
B
Brendan
Guest
The validity of a Sacrament depends on the moment of confection. The fact that they lived together for 20 years, and bore children is only cursorily relevant.The following two stories illustrate just why I look askance at Church annulments:
I seriously doubt that based on what the church has stated that a marriage of twenty years resulting in 4 children would qualify for an annulment.
.
What matters most is the Minister(s),Form, Matter and Intent. Did they properly exist at the moment of confection?. If any were missing or invalid, the Sacrament is invalid, and what follows for the next 20 years in meaningless to the validity of the Sacrament.
As an example, if a dishonest lay man snuck into a Sacristy, donned vestments and said ‘Mass’, in that he recited all the correct words over bread and wine. It would still remain bread and wine. It would not matter if the bread was placed in a monstrance and used in Benedictions for the next 20 years. It would still remain bread.
And if research was done after those 20 years, and it was discovered the person who said the original ‘Mass’ was not a valid priest, the investigators would be quite correct in declaring it to be simple bread, not the Blessed Sacrament.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
To me, it is definitely a double standard. A civil marriage is either valid or invalid according to Church law, or at least it should be. It’s like saying the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church, but for Catholics only.It shows a double standard. Catholics MUST be married in the Church but non Catholics dont need to be. Why? If the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church, should not all humanity adhere to the laws of the Church?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
The validity of a Sacrament depends on the moment of confection. The fact that they lived together for 20 years, and bore children is only cursorily relevant.
What matters most is the Minister(s),Form, Matter and Intent. Did they properly exist at the moment of confection?. If any were missing or invalid, the Sacrament is invalid, and what follows for the next 20 years in meaningless to the validity of the Sacrament.
As an example, if a dishonest lay man snuck into a Sacristy, donned vestments and said ‘Mass’, in that he recited all the correct words over bread and wine. It would still remain bread and wine. It would not matter if the bread was placed in a monstrance and used in Benedictions for the next 20 years. It would still remain bread.
And if research was done after those 20 years, and it was discovered the person who said the original ‘Mass’ was not a valid priest, the investigators would be quite correct in declaring it to be simple bread, not the Blessed Sacrament.
First, you have confused me post with the post I copied. I didn’t say I don’t believe two people with four children and a marriage of 20 years duration could not have grounds for a valid Church annulment. Under certain conditions, I think they can.The validity of a Sacrament depends on the moment of confection. The fact that they lived together for 20 years, and bore children is only cursorily relevant.
What matters most is the Minister(s),Form, Matter and Intent. Did they properly exist at the moment of confection?. If any were missing or invalid, the Sacrament is invalid, and what follows for the next 20 years in meaningless to the validity of the Sacrament.
As an example, if a dishonest lay man snuck into a Sacristy, donned vestments and said ‘Mass’, in that he recited all the correct words over bread and wine. It would still remain bread and wine. It would not matter if the bread was placed in a monstrance and used in Benedictions for the next 20 years. It would still remain bread.
And if research was done after those 20 years, and it was discovered the person who said the original ‘Mass’ was not a valid priest, the investigators would be quite correct in declaring it to be simple bread, not the Blessed Sacrament.
There is a world of difference in your two examples, though. For one thing, many people who request and receive Church annulments INTENDED to marry. Presumably the couple who were married 20 years intended to remain married. People don’t stay in a marriage for 20 years, produce four children, then decide, “Oops, I never meant this marriage to happen.” Obviously both spouses meant to have children. Obviously both were able to consummate the marriage and have children. Hence, it was a valid marriage. The form may have been wrong, granted. If one or both were baptized Catholics, then for a valid marriage to exist, they would have had to have been married in the Church in front of a priest or a deacon.
If a man impersonates a priest, I agree, the bread and wine remain bread and wine because the man has not received the sacrament of Holy Orders. However, by that reasoning, all who are married in a civil ceremony only or in front of other than a Catholic priest or deacon, have not entered into a sacramental marriage. So, not having entered into a valid marriage, according to the Catholic Church, if they divorce, the divorce is just a “break up” since they were never really married at all.
I still contend that ANYONE can find a reason for a Church annulment. That makes Church annulments next to worthless. Non-Catholics say, “Well, if it doesn’t work out, we can always get a divorce.” Catholics say, “Well, if it doesn’t work out, we can always get a Church annulment,” And in 99.999% of the cases, they are right.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,The following two stories illustrate just why I look askance at Church annulments:
…I agree with you wholeheartedly that the current liberal American Catholic Church annulment process is a joke. I am a Protestant who was married to my first husband, also a Protestant, for 16 years, bore his three children and then divorced him for extreme verbal abuse, physical abuse toward me and the children and adultery. We both moved on and remarried. I never had a problem with his second wife until about two years ago when I found out she wanted to annul my marriage so she can take communion in the Catholic Church and threatened my ex-husband with divorce if he refused to go along with it. Absolutely ridiculous. That woman knew what she was getting 15 years ago when she said “I do” . . . a divorced Protestant man with a vasectomy who made her sign a pre-nup. And she lived with him for two years prior. I refuse to reinterpret the Bible to feel better about myself and know I will have a lot of explaining to do on Judgement Day, but I do not believe God calls us to atone for our sins by hurting other people. Meanwhile, this re-enforces my two oldest children’s anti-organized religious stance, because if this is an example of how Christians show their love for one another, they want no part of it.
…
Why would that story make you “look askance at Church annulments”?
Dan
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I have to believe you’re joking.Hello,
Why would that story make you “look askance at Church annulments”?
Dan
First, the Catholic women married a divorced Protestant man. Second, she married a man knowing he’d had a vasectomy. Third, he made her sign a pre-nuptial agreement. Fourth, they lived together in sin for two years prior to the marriage, which did not take place in the Catholic Church. As the OP indicates, this women knew what she was getting and she accepted it. Therefore, no annulment should have been granted.
The Catholic Church might just as well go ahead and condone civil divorces since anyone can drum up grounds for an annulment. “I didn’t intend to remain in the marriage.” “I never intended to have children.” “I was taking drugs that left me unable to give valid consent at the time.” “I was just mentally unbalanced.” “I was coerced with emotional blackmail.” “My husband/wife hid the fact that he/she was physically, verbally, and/or emotionally abusive.” And the list goes on and on and on.
Let’s say a woman was married and divorced nine times, yet none of the marriages were entered into with the intent of remaining in them permanently, and the woman, a baptized Catholic, was never married in the Church. Well, under Canon Law, she qualifies for a Church annulment. It’s ridiculous.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,I have to believe you’re joking.
First, the Catholic women married a divorced Protestant man. Second, she married a man knowing he’d had a vasectomy. Third, he made her sign a pre-nuptial agreement. Fourth, they lived together in sin for two years prior to the marriage, which did not take place in the Catholic Church. As the OP indicates, this women knew what she was getting and she accepted it. Therefore, no annulment should have been granted.
The Catholic Church might just as well go ahead and condone civil divorces since anyone can drum up grounds for an annulment. “I didn’t intend to remain in the marriage.” “I never intended to have children.” “I was taking drugs that left me unable to give valid consent at the time.” “I was just mentally unbalanced.” “I was coerced with emotional blackmail.” “My husband/wife hid the fact that he/she was physically, verbally, and/or emotionally abusive.” And the list goes on and on and on.
Let’s say a woman was married and divorced nine times, yet none of the marriages were entered into with the intent of remaining in them permanently, and the woman, a baptized Catholic, was never married in the Church. Well, under Canon Law, she qualifies for a Church annulment. It’s ridiculous.
The woman did not ask for or receive an “annulment.” The man was the one who was in a previous union, which involved two Protestants and included “extreme verbal abuse, physical abuse toward me and the children and adultery.”
I take it that you are opposed to the abusive, adulterous, divorced, sterile, pre-nup demanding man being allowed to marry in the Church. That’s understandable. That is a question unrelated to the one regarding whether or not his first marriage was valid.
I am confused–do you think a person who marries with the intention of not having children and/or the intention to have a temporary union actually marries?
Dan
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,It shows a double standard. Catholics MUST be married in the Church but non Catholics dont need to be. Why? If the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church, should not all humanity adhere to the laws of the Church?
It is an appropriate double standard. I know of no authority in the Church who has ever thought it possible to bind the unbaptized to ecclesiastical law, in particular when that law restricts the exercise of a natural right.
Dan
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
No, I’m opposed to him being granted an annulment when he entered into what appears to have been a valid marriage with his first wife, a marriage that did produce children, and was almost certainly entered into with the intention of remaining married for life. I do not approve of the Church annulling valid marriages.Hello,
The woman did not ask for or receive an “annulment.” The man was the one who was in a previous union, which involved two Protestants and included “extreme verbal abuse, physical abuse toward me and the children and adultery.”
I take it that you are opposed to the abusive, adulterous, divorced, sterile, pre-nup demanding man being allowed to marry in the Church. That’s understandable. That is a question unrelated to the one regarding whether or not his first marriage was valid.
I am confused–do you think a person who marries with the intention of not having children and/or the intention to have a temporary union actually marries?
Dan
To answer your second question, I believe people who do not plan on having children or do not plan on their marriage being permanent can enter into a civil marriage, which I have read is not recognized by the Church, but I do not believe they can enter into a sacramental marriage.
What I am opposed to is the sheer ease with which Church annulments are granted, at least to the people I’ve come into contact with. It mars the sanctity of marriage itself.
I
ialsop
Guest
Yes, and that would be okay 100 years ago.Hello,
It is an appropriate double standard. I know of no authority in the Church who has ever thought it possible to bind the unbaptized to ecclesiastical law, in particular when that law restricts the exercise of a natural right.
Dan
Now, more and more civil marriages are gay or remarriages, so not valid anyways. When the MAJORITY become invalid(not sure if we are there yet), they will just have to make them all valid.
As to unbaptized-well you could still get married in a protestant church if your baptized.
I guess, well see 100 years all it was was canon law, so only Catholics were bound. But now it is more, it is is the sex I am having with my (second third eighth first) wife fornication, or my fellow man/woman, or whatever else fornication? Do I need to go to confession? DO I need an annulment? Will this allow me to receive Christ?
Now there is so much confusion and it hurts peoples souls.
D
dans0622
Guest
It certainly “appeared to be a valid marriage.” But, it was proven otherwise. Given what the “ex wife” said about the guy, I’m not surprised that ecclesiastical judges found proof which enabled them to conclude that the marriage was invalid.No, I’m opposed to him being granted an annulment when he entered into what appears to have been a valid marriage with his first wife, a marriage that did produce children, and was almost certainly entered into with the intention of remaining married for life. I do not approve of the Church annulling valid marriages.
To answer your second question, I believe people who do not plan on having children or do not plan on their marriage being permanent can enter into a civil marriage, which I have read is not recognized by the Church, but I do not believe they can enter into a sacramental marriage.
What I am opposed to is the sheer ease with which Church annulments are granted, at least to the people I’ve come into contact with. It mars the sanctity of marriage itself.
As for your concluding comment–I agree that some Judges are quite easy to convince that a marriage is invalid.
Dan
D
dans0622
Guest
Your comment here goes into an area that could be modified: what does the Church presume in regard to marriages contracted outside of the Church? It would be hard (and I think unfair) for the Church to say that only Catholic weddings result in a presumptively valid marriage. But, that is theoretically possible.Yes, and that would be okay 100 years ago.
Now, more and more civil marriages are gay or remarriages, so not valid anyways. When the MAJORITY become invalid(not sure if we are there yet), they will just have to make them all valid.
…
That being said, no “gay marriage” would ever be presumed valid by the Church.
Dan
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
The problem I have with this annulment is that the ex-wife gave no testimony before a tribunal nor did she submit anything in writing or file for the divorce. The Church did not hear her side about how awful her ex-husband is. The ex-wife herself has a problem with the annulment because the husband lied to make her seem the malicious one, when in reality, it was he.It certainly “appeared to be a valid marriage.” But, it was proven otherwise. Given what the “ex wife” said about the guy, I’m not surprised that ecclesiastical judges found proof which enabled them to conclude that the marriage was invalid.
As for your concluding comment–I agree that some Judges are quite easy to convince that a marriage is invalid.
Dan
I don’t doubt that an annulment is the right thing to do in some extreme cases, but I believe those cases to be few and far between. These days, anyone who wants an annulment can get one. That destroys the sanctity of marriage. Christ did not command us to remain faithful to a spouse unless… He put no conditions on our faithfulness.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I agree, the souls of some Catholics are being hurt by the Church’s refusal to allow them to take Holy Communion. Who needs Christ more than a sinner who is trying to repent and walk the narrow path and develop a personal relationship with Christ? Yet the Church wags a finger and says, no, no, no, you were married, divorced, and remarried, you cannot receive Christ. And yet I would need four hands to count the priests I know who commit the sin of fornication. Some even have children. My family is filled with priests and nuns, and I grew up in a cloister. I’ve known priests well. (But not in a biblical way; I was taught to have high morals).Yes, and that would be okay 100 years ago.
Now, more and more civil marriages are gay or remarriages, so not valid anyways. When the MAJORITY become invalid(not sure if we are there yet), they will just have to make them all valid.
As to unbaptized-well you could still get married in a protestant church if your baptized.
I guess, well see 100 years all it was was canon law, so only Catholics were bound. But now it is more, it is is the sex I am having with my (second third eighth first) wife fornication, or my fellow man/woman, or whatever else fornication? Do I need to go to confession? DO I need an annulment? Will this allow me to receive Christ?
Now there is so much confusion and it hurts peoples souls.
D
dans0622
Guest
How do you know who gave what testimony, and how does the woman know what he said? It’s the Church’s fault that she did not testify?The problem I have with this annulment is that the ex-wife gave no testimony before a tribunal nor did she submit anything in writing or file for the divorce. The Church did not hear her side about how awful her ex-husband is. The ex-wife herself has a problem with the annulment because the husband lied to make her seem the malicious one, when in reality, it was he.
I don’t doubt that an annulment is the right thing to do in some extreme cases, but I believe those cases to be few and far between. These days, anyone who wants an annulment can get one. That destroys the sanctity of marriage. Christ did not command us to remain faithful to a spouse unless… He put no conditions on our faithfulness.
It is simply not true that “anyone who wants an annulment can get one.” Things can be pretty lax but let’s “keep it real”, as they say. (Hopefully that means what I think it means…)
Dan
B
Brendan
Guest
Not necessarily. I personally know of a couple who had a Convalidation. The wife went into the marriage without a desire to have children. She had a reversion, they had children. Later, as they learned more about the faith, the couple came to the realization that that specific intent not to have children at the time of the marriage had a great potential to have invalidated their marriage. The priest reviewed the case, and determined that there was sufficient doubt on the marriage to offer a convalidation.There is a world of difference in your two examples, though. For one thing, many people who request and receive Church annulments INTENDED to marry. Presumably the couple who were married 20 years intended to remain married. People don’t stay in a marriage for 20 years, produce four children, then decide, “Oops, I never meant this marriage to happen.” Obviously both spouses meant to have children.
If their case went before a tribunal before that convalidation, there would have been every likelihood that an annulment would have been granted.
Non sequitur. In one case, the minister is lacks the sacramental authority. In the case of marriage, the ministers DO have the sacramental authority. What might be lacking is form. The Church has placed certain disciplinary restrictions on form that do not apply to not Christians who are not under the disciplinary requirements of the ChurchIf a man impersonates a priest, I agree, the bread and wine remain bread and wine because the man has not received the sacrament of Holy Orders. However, by that reasoning, all who are married in a civil ceremony only or in front of other than a Catholic priest or deacon, have not entered into a sacramental marriage…
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I know the women did not testify and she at least says the husband lied because she later filed forms to have the annulment declared null and void by Vatican officials, and it was. (It is another article.) I also read that one of the Kennedy wives, who certainly have accrued more than their share of Church annulments, did the same thing.How do you know who gave what testimony, and how does the woman know what he said? It’s the Church’s fault that she did not testify?
It is simply not true that “anyone who wants an annulment can get one.” Things can be pretty lax but let’s “keep it real”, as they say. (Hopefully that means what I think it means…)
Dan
I will say that it certainly SEEMS that anyone who wants a Church annulment can get one. They Church might as well sanction civil divorce for certain specific reasons. I see the need for SOME annulments, I just wish the Church would stop handing them out like candy mints.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.