what options does a person have who marries a divorcee

[Spirithound]

Because God doesn’t join people in shotgun weddings (figuratively) before civil magistrates.

Then why don’t you get the decree of nullity?

 

[SimonDodd]

Then why don’t you get the decree of nullity?

Talk to an evangelical about annulment sometime. Enjoy. Now imagine that you’re married to that evangelical, and while you’re converting, they are not—indeed, they are far from thrilled that you’re eyeing the Tiber in the first place. Then imagine that you take the advice of certain comments above, and tell them that you have to leave them while this process is underway.

Just how do you suppose that conversation will go down?

 

[Corki]

Your posts speak for themselves. You are insisting that when someone converts, they must leave their spouse pending an annulment of the spouse’s previous supposed “marriage,” regardless of how long they’ve been married, regardless of children, regardless of whether they other spouse is converting, heedless of the fact that in many cases this will prompt divorce. And if you think your comments don’t have application beyond the scenario you had in mind, again, that is because you are living in another world. Think about what you’re saying.

That’s not really what we are saying.

We are saying that *anyone *who converts to the Church must be able to receive the Sacraments in a state of grace. IF that person is living with someone who was married before; and IF the first spouse is still living and IF the first marriage was not declared null by a tribunal, the converting person will have some hurdles to clear before getting to that state of Grace.

One way to clear those hurdles is to separate from the current partner while clearing up the rest. That’s not the only way and it’s not even the recommended way when there are children at home.

You have heard in this thread from RCIA coordinators and DREs. They most certainly live in the real world and face your situation as well as just about every conceivable variation.

And it was not. So there was no prior “marriage,” for that and other reasons.

Your posts have started to confuse me because they seem to flip back and forth between your own situation and others. By the above, you seem to be saying that your current spouse either was Catholic or was married to a Catholic when she got married the first time. IF that was the case, and IF they did not follow the Church’s form for marriage then a full annullment investigation is probably not even necessary and you are blowing off at everyone for no good reason. Resolving those types of invalid marriages is mainly a paperwork process. In many diocese, it is also very quick since there is not a need for the investigative process.

 

[SimonDodd]

That’s not really what we are saying.

That is exactly what Andreas (post #24) and agapewolf (posts ##31 and 33) are saying.

One way to clear those hurdles is to separate from the current partner while clearing up the rest. That’s not the only way and it’s not even the recommended way when there are children at home.

It’s the only way that’s been suggested. I do not take “live together as brother and sister” to be a serious suggestion, although it’s been mentioned. Think about it. If an engaged couple were living together, insisting that it was merely as brother and sister, the people suggesting that as an option in a similar situation would be jumping up and down.

Your posts have started to confuse me because they seem to flip back and forth between your own situation and others.

The points being expressed have application both to my own situation and, mutatis mutandis, to others. (agapewolf doesn’t seem to realize that, given his insistence that I am reading his comments out of context; I’m not, but his comments sweep broadly.)

By the above, you seem to be saying that your current spouse either was Catholic or was married to a Catholic when she got married the first time.

She was a lapsed but baptized Catholic, and “lack of canonical form” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

IF that was the case, and IF they did not follow the Church’s form for marriage then a full annullment investigation is probably not even necessary and you are blowing off at everyone for no good reason.

I’m “blowing off at everyone” because they are being extraordinarily rude, insensitive, and unhelpful. They need to stop and think. They need to remember that they are dealing with actual human beings. They need to grasp that what they are saying has consequences; it will break up homes if followed, and more likely will push people away from the Church. Imagine someone reading this thread who is thinking of converting, but they aren’t sure, they are barely at the threshold of the inquiry phase. (This is not, to be clear, my own situation; I’m with Peter: “Lord, to whom else shall we go?”) What do you suppose their reaction will be to the suggestion that they will have to up and leave their spouse while the Church considers the validity of a prior marriage? I think that person is more than a little likely to say “screw this” and leave. I’m not going anywhere, but the tactless comments above may frighten off people who stumble upon this issue earlier in their formation.

 

[agapewolf]

Oh! Well! I’m very sorry if your feelings are hurt by this, Mr. Pot!

Because God doesn’t join people in shotgun weddings (figuratively) before civil magistrates.

Riiiight. If there’s one thing that’s clear in what has been said above, it’s that I don’t have any skin in this game.

Your posts speak for themselves. You are insisting that when someone converts, they must leave their spouse pending an annulment of the spouse’s previous supposed “marriage,” regardless of how long they’ve been married, regardless of children, regardless of whether they other spouse is converting, heedless of the fact that in many cases this will prompt divorce. And if you think your comments don’t have application beyond the scenario you had in mind, again, that is because you are living in another world. Think about what you’re saying.

I am female, and you need to tone it down. I have not been sarcastic in the least to you, and you are being offensive in your manner here. Back of the condensation. YOU are the one being rude.

And no, I didn’t say a spouse must leave. You really didn’t read my posts at all.

 

[agapewolf]

T
I’m “blowing off at everyone” because they are being extraordinarily rude, insensitive, and unhelpful. They need to stop and think. They need to remember that they are dealing with actual human beings. They need to grasp that what they are saying has consequences; it will break up homes if followed, and more likely will push people away from the Church. Imagine someone reading this thread who is thinking of converting, but they aren’t sure, they are barely at the threshold of the inquiry phase. (This is not, to be clear, my own situation; I’m with Peter: “Lord, to whom else shall we go?”) What do you suppose their reaction will be to the suggestion that they will have to up and leave their spouse while the Church considers the validity of a prior marriage? I think that person is more than a little likely to say “screw this” and leave. I’m not going anywhere, but the tactless comments above may frighten off people who stumble upon this issue earlier in their formation.

You need to think that what you are saying has eternal consequences. These actual human beings have made vows to people, and you have yet to answer the question,…what about those vows, how come they don’t count? How come that marriage doesn’t count? (If its a shot gun wedding, the annulment will prove it-- very simple)

Reaction? reaction doesn’t matter— the truth matters. The gate is narrow and there is a cross to carry.

 

[Corki]

I’m “blowing off at everyone” because they are being extraordinarily rude, insensitive, and unhelpful. They need to stop and think. They need to remember that they are dealing with actual human beings. They need to grasp that what they are saying has consequences; it will break up homes if followed, and more likely will push people away from the Church. Imagine someone reading this thread who is thinking of converting, but they aren’t sure, they are barely at the threshold of the inquiry phase. (This is not, to be clear, my own situation; I’m with Peter: “Lord, to whom else shall we go?”) What do you suppose their reaction will be to the suggestion that they will have to up and leave their spouse while the Church considers the validity of a prior marriage? I think that person is more than a little likely to say “screw this” and leave. I’m not going anywhere, but the tactless comments above may frighten off people who stumble upon this issue earlier in their formation.

You are right that it is easy to be very black and white from a distance, especially over cyber-space. But the real world of priests and RCIA directors includes many of these same situations, and they aren’t hypothetical.

What would you suggest? A person who wants to join the Church but is in an “irregular marriage” needs to get to the point of being properly disposed to receive the Sacraments. To withhold this very important fact until someone is later in their formation is just as likely to alinate someone as laying all the facts out in the beginning.

You are close to this situation. What would be your proposal? Keep in mind that you can’t change the CCC or the Code of Canon law anymore than a priest or a RCIA teacher can.

 

[SimonDodd]

Corki, that’s right, we’re not talking about hypotheticals. These are viscerally intimate questions involving real people. The kind of cavalier attitude displayed by some commenters is staggering—If I was to infer their status based on nothing but what they have said here, I would suspect they are single and very young, and/or they have a lack of empathy bordering on the sociopathic. Consider: If someone whose confirmation is put on ice pending an annulment “would have chosen to live [with their spouse] as brother and sister, or seperate [sic.],” agapewolf tells us, “they could have taken part in the sacraments”—just like that! Comments like that are not only oblivious to the world as it actually is, but stunningly insensitive to the fact that they are talking in icy abstractions about real people. They don’t seem to grasp the real-world consequences of the kind of conduct they are advocating: they are describing a short walk to broken marriages and divorce as if they were giving instructions on the use of a toaster oven. And then they have the nerve to say “oh, why are you being so sensitive, why are you getting bent out of shape with me?” Fancy!

As to what should be done: I don’t have to know how to fly in order to say that flapping your arms won’t do it. Whatever the answer may be, the kind of tactless, obliviously abstract comments made above are the wrong attitude.

you have yet to answer the question,…what about those vows, how come they don’t count? How come that marriage doesn’t count?

Wrong. See post #40.

I have not been sarcastic in the least to you, and you are being offensive in your manner here.

You have been painfully offensive in what you have said.

And no, I didn’t say a spouse must leave. You really didn’t read my posts at all.

This truly makes me wonder if you understand the sweep of your comments. That is exactly what your posts ## 31 and 33 say: you say that people in that situation have the choice between leaving their spouse or staying outside the Church. (The third option you present, that they live together as brother and sister, is purely rhetorical; you would not suggest that two gay men continue to live together as brother and brother, or that fiances live together as brother and sister before their wedding, and for much the same reasons, the suggestion that spouses do so is not to be taken seriously.) Perhaps you didn’t mean to say what you said; perhaps you meant it to have a more limited office. I’m reacting to what you actually said. If you really don’t understand the breadth of your comments, that only goes to underline what I said before: you need to stop and think about what you are saying.