what options does a person have who marries a divorcee

[SimonDodd]

Living together as husband and wife is wrong in this situation unless both individuals were free to marry when the ceremony took place. Three things need to happen:

1. The 2 people need to stop living together as husband and wife
2. The husband needs to file for an annulment

***** if the prior marriage was found to be invalid *****

1. The couple (who I am assuming are Catholic and married outside of the Church) need to have their marriage convalidated within the Church.

Are you seriously suggesting that converts who married a divorcee before becoming Catholic leave their spouse when they join the Church, pending the annulment process and remarriage within the Church?

 

[PatrickSebast]

Saint Paul certainly could have done us all a big favor by including the situation of Jews who had already divorced and remarried in his letter. Certainly it was an issue. I wish someone had bothered to tell him that his writings were going to be referred to for centuries to come and not just limited to the communities he addressed them to.

 

[agapewolf]

Are you seriously suggesting that converts who married a divorcee before becoming Catholic leave their spouse when they join the Church, pending the annulment process and remarriage within the Church?

They aren’t their spouse. They aren’t married.

 

[SimonDodd]

They aren’t their spouse. They aren’t married.

That’s pure sophistry. I’ve been married to my wife for seven years on Sunday. Whether or not the Church regards our marriage as a valid Catholic wedding (which, technically, it was not), we sure as hell do, and so does God, who brought us together despite our living thousands of miles apart at the time, and through her drew me to Himself. If you’re seriously suggesting that on converting, people in our situation should move out pending the completion of an annulment process and remarriage, you’re living on another planet. I understand the point you’re making, and in its icy abstraction, it is pristinely undisturbed by any need to be relevant to or engaged with reality. In terms of dealing with actual human beings, it’s a non-starter. If what you were suggesting were to be taken seriously, it would close the doors of the Catholic Church to married would-be converts, virtually none of whom are going to leave their wives—yes, wives—even for Holy Mother Church.

I would be interested to hear Scott Hahn’s take on this. “Scott, you and Kim wrote movingly of your difficulties when you converted. But don’t you realize that you weren’t married in the first place, and that what you should have done on your conversion is separated from her until she converted and could remarry in the Church?” You could ask the same of any number of devout converts, but if I may offer some advice? If you do, wear a cup.

 

[rick43235]

That’s pure sophistry. I’ve been married to my wife for seven years on Sunday. Whether or not the Church regards our marriage as a valid Catholic wedding (which, technically, it was not), we sure as hell do, and so does God, who brought us together despite our living thousands of miles apart at the time, and through her drew me to Himself. If you’re seriously suggesting that on converting, people in our situation should move out pending the completion of an annulment process and remarriage, you’re living on another planet. I understand the point you’re making, and in its icy abstraction, it is pristinely undisturbed by any need to be relevant to or engaged with reality. In terms of dealing with actual human beings, it’s a non-starter. If what you were suggesting were to be taken seriously, it would close the doors of the Catholic Church to married would-be converts, virtually none of whom are going to leave their wives—yes, wives—even for Holy Mother Church.

Oops…be careful there. You’re using common sense. That kind of thing is NOT appreciated around here.

 

[Corki]

I would be interested to hear Scott Hahn’s take on this. “Scott, you and Kim wrote movingly of your difficulties when you converted. But don’t you realize that you weren’t married in the first place, and that what you should have done on your conversion is separated from her until she converted and could remarry in the Church?” You could ask the same of any number of devout converts, but if I may offer some advice?

I think you jumped in here without reading the whole thread.

Two baptized individuals who marry outside the Catholic Church as validly and Sacrmentally married unless one of them is Catholic at the time of the marriage. The Hahn’s were not Catholic at the time of their marriage so their marrige is Sacramentally valid (as far as we can tell from public information). The fact that one spouse converts to the Church has no bearing on the validity of their marriage.

 

[puzzleannie]

Yes, you are of course right. If you are serious about your faith you would not enter into such an arrangement. The more heart rending scenario is if after you have entered into such a marriage and THEN you become more aware of the consequences…

yes you are right about heart rending, I run into this all the time through all the sacramental programs for adults and children, either they cannot be confirmed themselves, nor act as sponsors. For the life of me I cannot figure out how someone raised Catholic who is practicing the faith never got this basic message, but it is a simple fact that fewer than half the children in our parish programs are in families where the spouses are validly married in the Church. IMO the priests, nuns, DREs like me and others in charge of their faith formation are going to have to face a stern judge about their failure in their duty to those who came to them seeking the truth and were given watered down, wrong, or no teaching on marriage and family.

Our pastor handles all such cases and merely informs me when or if they are able to proceed to the other sacraments as it is beyond my competence or canonical authority to deal with marriage cases. But we do teach a session on marriage in our basic formation, and all parents and sponsors are required to take that class in this parish. We also invite all family members to complete their own sacramental initiation, to meet with the priest or deacon regarding individual marriage situations, and we host a convalidation retreat for those who need that.

so much for that, but fact remains that annulments are not automatic, and the couple may be faced with the hard choice of separating, or remaining in the same household for the sake of the children but living as brother and sister. This is especially harsh when one member of the couple is not Catholic, and is now being faced with consequences of choices neither party knew were wrong at the time.

and because the same wrong statement gets repeated in every such thread I will say again, a marriage between two non Catholics who are otherwise free to marry is regarded as valid by the Catholic Church. If they are both baptized, it is also sacramental. No issue arises when either or both parties convert regarding marriage in such cases. Both parties are not required to convert and they don’t need convalidation. The issues that impede reception into the Church involve remarriage after civil divorce and the like. So please avoid mis-stating and mis-directing on these issues, and please do not compare your own situation or that of a near relative to that of other people or make generalizations based on it. Each marriage situation is unique.

God set the conditions for marriage when he created man and woman, Christ reiterated them and interpreted the law of God for our age, and endowed His Church with the authority to regulate marriage. Regardless of my opinion it is Christ through His Church who determines if my marriage is valid. My opinion cannot turn black to white or make what is false into true.

 

[dans0622]

That’s pure sophistry. I’ve been married to my wife for seven years on Sunday. Whether or not the Church regards our marriage as a valid Catholic wedding (which, technically, it was not), we sure as hell do, and so does God, who brought us together despite our living thousands of miles apart at the time, and through her drew me to Himself. If you’re seriously suggesting that on converting, people in our situation should move out pending the completion of an annulment process and remarriage, you’re living on another planet. I understand the point you’re making, and in its icy abstraction, it is pristinely undisturbed by any need to be relevant to or engaged with reality. In terms of dealing with actual human beings, it’s a non-starter. If what you were suggesting were to be taken seriously, it would close the doors of the Catholic Church to married would-be converts, virtually none of whom are going to leave their wives—yes, wives—even for Holy Mother Church.

Hello Simon Dodd,

I will not presume to speak for “agapewolf” and “Tietjen” and assume what he/she was implying. I also will not presume to address your particular situation, which I know nothing about, other than what you’ve said above. So, speaking generally…

If two people marry, then separate without civil divorce/dissolution, then a party marries another person, civil law would consider that second marriage as invalid/null/unlawful. The couple can think/believe whatever they wish and civil authorities might not bother them or charge them with anything. But, if the couple went to a lawyer and laid out this scenario, the lawyer would be shirking his responsibility if he told the couple something other than the facts and consequences of the law.

Similarly, the Catholic Church, as a visible society, has many laws regarding the institution of marriage. One can call it sophistry. One can say “God agrees with me, not the Church.” But, if the law of the Church–which is based on divine revelation–is applied to a certain scenario and leads to a certain conclusion, the Church must be honest and tell people the facts. To do otherwise would be hypocritical and lead to a conversation like this–Person in the Pew: “What about my marriage?”

Church: “You’ll need to get a convalidation.” PitP: “Why?”

Church: “Well, because of your marital history, your present ‘marriage’ is presumed to be invalid in the Catholic Church.” PitP: “What does that mean? What should I do?”

Church: “Don’t worry about it. It means nothing, practically.” PitP: “But you said I need a convalidation. If it doesn’t mean anything, practically, why bother?”

Church: “Um…”

Thanks for your time,
Dan

 

[agapewolf]

That’s pure sophistry. I’ve been married to my wife for seven years on Sunday. Whether or not the Church regards our marriage as a valid Catholic wedding (which, technically, it was not), we sure as hell do, and so does God, who brought us together despite our living thousands of miles apart at the time, and through her drew me to Himself. If you’re seriously suggesting that on converting, people in our situation should move out pending the completion of an annulment process and remarriage, you’re living on another planet. I understand the point you’re making, and in its icy abstraction, it is pristinely undisturbed by any need to be relevant to or engaged with reality. In terms of dealing with actual human beings, it’s a non-starter. If what you were suggesting were to be taken seriously, it would close the doors of the Catholic Church to married would-be converts, virtually none of whom are going to leave their wives—yes, wives—even for Holy Mother Church.

I would be interested to hear Scott Hahn’s take on this. “Scott, you and Kim wrote movingly of your difficulties when you converted. But don’t you realize that you weren’t married in the first place, and that what you should have done on your conversion is separated from her until she converted and could remarry in the Church?” You could ask the same of any number of devout converts, but if I may offer some advice? If you do, wear a cup.

Before going off in such a way, make sure you know what you are talking about.

Scott and kimberly WERE married, becuase they were not previously married to someone else. Protestants, without impediments are considered to be in a valid marriage.

People who marry someone, are considered to be married to them (even if they civilly divorce and civilly marry someone else) until proven otherwise. THIS is reality.

We are talking about divorced and remarried people. Not married protestants who are converting.

I’m honoring what Christ said about marriage lasting forever.

 

[mswood]

That’s pure sophistry. I’ve been married to my wife for seven years on Sunday. Whether or not the Church regards our marriage as a valid Catholic wedding (which, technically, it was not), we sure as hell do, and so does God, who brought us together despite our living thousands of miles apart at the time, and through her drew me to Himself. If you’re seriously suggesting that on converting, people in our situation should move out pending the completion of an annulment process and remarriage, you’re living on another planet. I understand the point you’re making, and in its icy abstraction, it is pristinely undisturbed by any need to be relevant to or engaged with reality. In terms of dealing with actual human beings, it’s a non-starter. If what you were suggesting were to be taken seriously, it would close the doors of the Catholic Church to married would-be converts, virtually none of whom are going to leave their wives—yes, wives—even for Holy Mother Church.

I would be interested to hear Scott Hahn’s take on this. “Scott, you and Kim wrote movingly of your difficulties when you converted. But don’t you realize that you weren’t married in the first place, and that what you should have done on your conversion is separated from her until she converted and could remarry in the Church?” You could ask the same of any number of devout converts, but if I may offer some advice? If you do, wear a cup.

’

I don’t know what anyone is suggesting, however I wanted to say that in my diocese (and I assume others), if the person that is converting to Catholic is married to a divorcee or if the convert is divorced and remarried, they will not allow them to be baptized/confirmed as Catholic until their previous marriages are resolved (meaning annulment or death of previous spouse). There have been cases where people have not be able to join at all because their annulments where denied. I would like to say however if the convert and current spouse had never been married previously there is no issue with them joining the church and the church considers their marriage valid.

 

[agapewolf]

’

I don’t know what anyone is suggesting, however I wanted to say that in my diocese (and I assume others), if the person that is converting to Catholic is married to a divorcee or if the convert is divorced and remarried, they will not allow them to be baptized/confirmed as Catholic until their previous marriages are resolved (meaning annulment or death of previous spouse). There have been cases where people have not be able to join at all because their annulments where denied. I would like to say however if the convert and current spouse had never been married previously there is no issue with them joining the church and the church considers their marriage valid.

No, they would have been able to join, even if their annulments were denied. They decided that their civil marriage was more important than following God’s laws on marriage.

 

[mswood]

No, they would have been able to join, even if their annulments were denied. They decided that their civil marriage was more important than following God’s laws on marriage.

All I know is that there where 2 people that I went through RCIA with that where not allowed to take part in the sacraments of initiation with the rest of us because they where still waiting on their annulments. We also had a person that had been part of the previous years RCIA that was confirmed with the rest of us because his annulment finally went through.

 

[agapewolf]

All I know is that there where 2 people that I went through RCIA with that where not allowed to take part in the sacraments of initiation with the rest of us because they where still waiting on their annulments. We also had a person that had been part of the previous years RCIA that was confirmed with the rest of us because his annulment finally went through.

and again, if they would have chosen to live as brother and sister, or seperate, they could have taken part in the sacraments. This was their choice.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

This is a very problematic thing. Fortunately, it doesn’t effect me personally. I’m happily married now for 23 years. But I wonder what the right thing is for people in this situation (like my sister). The best thing, obviously, is to never get into this situation, but once there, how do you react to the call of faith?

There have been plenty of answers, but let’s condense them into a short presentation.

1. Cease conjugal relations, investigate the previous marriage, obtain a declaration of nullity, and marry the divorcee with whom one has been living.
2. Cease conjugal relations, investigate the previous marriage, receive a declaration of the previous marriage’s validity, begin to take steps to cease “married” life with the person who is married to someone else. The precise arrangements should be worked out in consultation with pastors when there are children unfortunately involved.

Number 2 will most likely involve a lot of pain and heartache, so from our perspective it often looks like the separation is the tragedy. But consider that from God’s perspective, the institutionalized adultery of the “remarriage” was the tragedy, and the separation is the healing. Christ told us that we have to love him more than father, mother, husband, wife, brother, or sister. Answering the call of conversion means precisely that. It means reorienting one’s life to love God with one’s whole heart, and as John tells us in his first epistle, the way we know that we love God is if we keep His commandments - this includes those which govern marriage, and upon which he we not particularly vague (Matthew’s Gospel providing the one difficult phrase).

Are you seriously suggesting that converts who married a divorcee before becoming Catholic leave their spouse when they join the Church, pending the annulment process and remarriage within the Church?

I would not counsel full separation before one had learned the results of a marriage tribunal’s investigation. That seems like it would cause too much disruption in the event that one was free to marriage. However, there is absolutely no question that one *must *cease living as man and wife when there is a presumption that a previous marriage(/s) is valid, which will hold true for all but a few specific cases (e.g., if a Catholic’s previous “marriage” lacked proper ecclesiastical form, there is no presumption of validity).

That being said, however, I don’t really see how crazy it would be for an individual to leave someone to whom they are *not *in fact married when they convert, considering that Paul allows a convert to leave someone to whom he is validly married if that spouse is unwilling to continue peacefully in marriage after the other’s acceptance of Christianity. That there is the foolishness of the Gospel choosing to avoid an occasion of sin (regression to one’s previous religion) over the good of a valid (though non-sacramental) marriage. We haven’t gone to that length. All we’ve asked here is that an individual cease sinning mortally.

That’s pure sophistry. I’ve been married to my wife for seven years on Sunday. Whether or not the Church regards our marriage as a valid Catholic wedding (which, technically, it was not), we sure as hell do, and so does God, who brought us together despite our living thousands of miles apart at the time, and through her drew me to Himself. If you’re seriously suggesting that on converting, people in our situation should move out pending the completion of an annulment process and remarriage, you’re living on another planet. I understand the point you’re making, and in its icy abstraction, it is pristinely undisturbed by any need to be relevant to or engaged with reality. In terms of dealing with actual human beings, it’s a non-starter. If what you were suggesting were to be taken seriously, it would close the doors of the Catholic Church to married would-be converts, virtually none of whom are going to leave their wives—yes, wives—even for Holy Mother Church.

Simon, you’ve hit the nail on the head, you’ve just made the wrong conclusion. You’ve said that faced with Christ’s teaching that one cannot remarry after a divorce, most people would choose to continue in their putative marriages rather than embrace Christ. I’m well aware of that. I have family members who did just that from within the Church, let alone coming from outside of it. I don’t know your situation, so it may be possible that you can get married to the woman you consider your wife, in which case Christ may have been calling you to marriage and you just haven’t gotten to the end of His “to do” list for you. If, on the other hand, you are in a situation where you cannot validly marry, then you can determine objectively that God has not called you to your current relationship. That’s real. It doesn’t become less real because it is off-putting.

The issues that impede reception into the Church involve remarriage after civil divorce and the like.

As others have pointed out, though, these are not impediments at all. One is always free to live according to God’s law as it is assumed the situation demands. These issues only impede reception into the Church when individuals converting are not willing to clear the hurdle of the moral law while they wait to learn about their marriage. I’ve never understood why it is not universal practice for RCIA teams to inform people in irregular marriages that, as far as the Church can tell, they are gravely violating the moral law whether they enter the Church or not - what’s with the polite aversion of the eyes until we get a verdict, when the Church demands a presumption of the previous marriage’s validity?

 

[SimonDodd]

Andreas, if you mean any of that to be taken seriously, then like agapewolf, you are living on another planet that bears only passing resemblance to our own . You want people who have been married for years, who may have children, to separate? Do you have any idea how that sounds? What you are saying is not “offputting,” it’s obscene. It will cause divorce. It will destroy families. And what’s all the more galling is that neither of you seem to have any concept just how staggeringly offensive you’re being, or how disconnected from real life your comments are. If either of you plan on talking to someone in person the way you’re speaking here, wear a cup. What God has joined, as he has us, no man—least of all you—will sunder.

If I presented myself as a candidate for Holy Orders, they would reject me because I’m married. And rightly so, because I am. You can’t have it both ways.

if a Catholic’s previous “marriage” lacked proper ecclesiastical form, there is no presumption of validity

Actually, that strikes me as a common situation. It may even be mine. Do you mean baptized Catholic or confirmed Catholic?

 

[Corki]

If I presented myself as a candidate for Holy Orders, they would reject me because I’m married. And rightly so, because I am. You can’t have it both ways.

You would be rejected but not because you are married. You would be rejected because you invalidly attempted marriage and are living with a woman to whom you are not validly married.

Actually, that strikes me as a common situation. It may even be mine. Do you mean baptized Catholic or confirmed Catholic?

Confirmation has no effect on the validity of marriage. If one or both of the persons were baptized as a Catholic or joined the Church before the civil marriage, the marriage is not valid. Sacraments require form, matter and intent. In order for a Catholic to enter a valid marriage, proper form must be observed.

 

[SimonDodd]

Confirmation has no effect on the validity of marriage. If one or both of the persons were baptized as a Catholic or joined the Church before the civil marriage, the marriage is not valid. Sacraments require form, matter and intent. In order for a Catholic to enter a valid marriage, proper form must be observed.

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

 

[agapewolf]

Andreas, if you mean any of that to be taken seriously, then like agapewolf, you are living on another planet that bears only passing resemblance to our own . You want people who have been married for years, who may have children, to separate? Do you have any idea how that sounds? What you are saying is not “offputting,” it’s obscene. It will cause divorce. It will destroy families. And what’s all the more galling is that neither of you seem to have any concept just how staggeringly offensive you’re being, or how disconnected from real life your comments are. If either of you plan on talking to someone in person the way you’re speaking here, wear a cup. What God has joined, as he has us, no man—least of all you—will sunder.

If I presented myself as a candidate for Holy Orders, they would reject me because I’m married. And rightly so, because I am. You can’t have it both ways.

Actually, that strikes me as a common situation. It may even be mine. Do you mean baptized Catholic or confirmed Catholic?

You are being offensive in the way you are speaking. Tone it down. Calling us “least” of all men?

The thing is, God has NOT joined people when he has already joined them to someone else. Why do you not think that THAT is offensive? What about THOSE vows? What about the first time they said “till death do us part”? How come they don’t count?

You are going off on something you don’t know anything about.

You keep mention “real life”. Well, I am in real life. I am following God’s laws. That is very real. Eternity is very real. When someone vows to someone till death, God takes that seriously, and so should we.

Go back and actually read what my posts are about, I’ll correct you again, this is not about converts who are married for the first time to each other. (as you presumned the first time you went off on me). This is about people who were originally married to someone else first.

 

[Zeemeermin]

Reminds me of when I got into it with my stepmom, who was married in the Catholic Church and civilly divorced, and is now “married” to my father, also married in the Catholic Church and civilly divorced. No annulments, though both would probably come through if the examination was asked for. In her case, her husband cheated on her for at least 18 out of the 20 years, so I think a case could be made that he never intended to remain exclusive. She was also a minor. In my dad’s case, they hardly knew each other and my mom was pregnant with me. So, lots of fodder there for a tribunal.

Anyway, she said the Catholic Church “threw her out.” I told her to be honest, that she didn’t like the rules so she left. And she admitted that yes, that’s what it really was. So there ya go… you have the choice to either follow God’s law or not. If you believe the Church has no authority in marriage issues, why are you even here arguing? Why do you care about acceptance from a body whom you believe has no valid standpoint to give or withhold it? The story about the would-be confirmation sponsor just shows that people get mad when the Church won’t let them have the pretty picture and the party, because substance actually matters. How is a person who is not living God’s law supposed to teach it?

 

[SimonDodd]

You are being offensive in the way you are speaking. Tone it down.

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

The thing is, God has NOT joined people when he has already joined them to someone else. Why do you not think that THAT is offensive? What about THOSE vows? What about the first time they said “till death do us part”? How come they don’t count?

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

You are going off on something you don’t know anything about.

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.

Go back and actually read what my posts are about

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.