Why don't remarried just pursue an annulment?

[maryjk]

My question is this: why would a Catholic, who desires Communion, attends Mass, etc. not simply file for an annulment? I don’t get it. If you have such an observant Catholic, why don’t they take this step?

Some weren’t Catholic when they divorced, then remarried.

They came into the Church and then found out that their first marriage was valid.

 

[Phemie]

Some weren’t Catholic when they divorced, then remarried.

They came into the Church and then found out that their first marriage was valid.

That should never happen. This detail should be taken care of before anyone is baptized/received into full communion.

 

[SMH_2015]

Some weren’t Catholic when they divorced, then remarried.

They came into the Church and then found out that their first marriage was valid.

^^^^
That. I married, divorced, & re-married while I was a Protestant. When I started attending Mass, I did some research I realized I would likely never be able to take Communion.

 

[phil19034]

^^^^
That. I married, divorced, & re-married while I was a Protestant. When I started attending Mass, I did some research I realized I would likely never be able to take Communion.

You maybe eligible for an annulment. There is only one way to find out for sure, apply for one. God Speed and God Bless!

 

[otjm]

Annulment is only possible if there were grounds for such .

And out of all the people who are Catholic who get a divorce, about what percentage have even the faintest clue as to what the grounds for a decree of nullity are?

Which is another way of saying if all you have heard is the gossip, innuendos, mistakes and outright lies about decrees of nullity (as well as the status of someone who is divorced let alone divorced and remarried), what among them would compel you to apply?

 

[otjm]

Some might believe it would affect children of the former marriage. The Church says it doesn’t, but many people still believe it does. The belief itself might cause harm.

“Might”???

Let’s try “does cause harm”.

 

[otjm]

An annulment is not a divorce or a right. You can only get one if, as everyone else said, there are grounds for it. And frankly, I personally think that annulments are given out too easily as it is. Remember the Kennedy annulment? The Vatican found the marriage valid and overturned the annulment.

Given out too easily?

According to research by CARA (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate), only 7% of divorced Catholics get a decree of nullity.

According to the same study, 8% who start the process do not get one.

Which leaves 85% who never even try to get one.

And you think they are too easy???

I would say something about the Kennedy process, but I would probably violate at least one if not several rules. Let’s just say that case is hardly the grounds upon which to make any decision whatsoever about other decrees of nullity.

 

[otjm]

^^^^
That. I married, divorced, & re-married while I was a Protestant. When I started attending Mass, I did some research I realized I would likely never be able to take Communion.

This is not meant to be harsh, but we had an old saying in law: he (she) who represents themselves has a fool for a client. Which means, you may have done some research, but unless you have been involved in tribunal work sufficiently long to know how cases are actually decided, you don’t know. Another phrase is: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

It takes two to make a fight; and likewise, it takes two to make a covenant. You may have intended all the necessary elements; your spouse may not have; you may not have had an impediment; your spouse may have. You should not be making the decision. A tribunal should, or at least, a competent individual who can assist you in determining what is possible and what is not.

 

[InThePew]

An annulment is not a divorce or a right. You can only get one if, as everyone else said, there are grounds for it. And frankly, I personally think that annulments are given out too easily as it is. Remember the Kennedy annulment? The Vatican found the marriage valid and overturned the annulment.

See: Annulments in America.

In certain circumstances the divorced and remarried can already receive the Eucharist - basically through reconciliation and continent living (Familiaris Consortio 84) although most are probably unaware of this.

 

[otjm]

See: Annulments in America.

In certain circumstances the divorced and remarried can already receive the Eucharist - basically through reconciliation and continent living (Familiaris Consortio 84) although most are probably unaware of this.

Dr. Peters appears to have written that in 1996, or 19 years ago. The CARA statistics I referred to are definitely more recent, and I have yet to see anyone challenge their findings, which fit very closely to Dr. Peters, writing years before their research.

 

[TheAdvocate]

He has never said that they should be admitted to Communion. He has, in fact, taken great pains to explain why the Church cannot do that. The mass media , in turn, seems to go to great pains to avoid reporting this part of his comments.

I didn’t say that he the pope said they ought to be admitted. Only that that he suggested the possibility of it should be investigated.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I really appreciate the responses. Very thoughtful. Thanks to all.

 

[otjm]

I didn’t say that he the pope said they ought to be admitted. Only that that he suggested the possibility of it should be investigated.

The Pope did not come up with this discussion out of the blue, or on a whim. It is obvious that this is an issue which has been of some importance, for some time, whether or not you, I, and the rest of the folks in the pews were aware of it.

There are many who cannot fathom why it even needs to be discussed; and the answer to that is because there are a series of issues and ramifications surrounding the main question.

People tend to think linearly, and not see that there may be issues related to a question that have occurred to others, although not to them. Further, there may be a need to reexamine not just the central question, but peripheral issues also.

Once upon a time these matters were dealt with in a much more restricted fashion; that is, they did not receive the public viewing of the process. Seeing the Church in action horrifies some people, but there is nothing either in Tradition or in the Gospels which says that decisions the Church is making need to be done in private. Some may, but there is great value in some issues being dealt with in the open, in view, with all of us watching.

It appears that not only the Pope, but a goodly number of others in the hierarchy have felt this issue and its attendant other issues needs to be aired openly.

And the Holy Spirit still protects the Church from error in Faith and Morals, in spite of all the angst and all the electrons which have been mightily discomforted by the calling of these meetings. God is still in charge.