Tags
I hope Geoffrey will forgive me if I respond to his posts yesterday in less full a manner than I should like, but this is being written rather early before a long day and after one, but I hope it makes sense – even if I know it is muddled.
I have been talking with my vicar and a curate about the so-called liturgy for blessing same-sex unions. Their opinion (which is mine) is that if there is such a thing, the Church is unlikely to adopt it for precisely the reasons Geoffrey states so eloquently; we cannot redefine sin to suit our own purposes. Matters such as women priests rest on Tradition, not Biblical prescription; one can take the view that as Christ did not have female apostles, women should not be priests, but that is an extrapolation from Tradition and an explanation for it; it is not an actual prohibition. As I take that view, I agree with Tradition; but I understand those who take a different view and probably respect their view more than they do mine.
I am well aware of the arguments used to suggest that the Pauline passages used to show homosexuality is sinful can be interpreted in other ways; but here, too, I am more persuaded by Tradition. That is still not how even my own Church reads Paul, neither would it be compatible with the reading of marriage as between one man and one woman for life. Yes, I know my own Church permits divorcees to remarry, and yes, I know that contradicts Tradition and Scripture. We have not chosen to go down the road of creating a quasi-legal process which investigates whether a marriage was, itself ‘valid’; we have not chosen to ask people whether they were sincere when they made their vows, or whether they really knew what they were promising; neither have we chosen to give vengeful ex-spouses the chance to refuse to cooperate with a tribunal. No, we have chosen here to prefer mercy and compassion. Marriages break down. We can add to the grief on people, or we can mitigate it; we have chosen to do the latter.
As a divorced woman whose husband simply walked out on her for someone else with no warning, this is sore point for me. I don’t actually know where he is at the moment – but I do know what his reaction to a letter from anyone looking into an annulment would be. Moreover, I could not accept an annulment. I loved him, I married him after long thought and knew precisely what I was doing. As far as I know, he did too, although as a non-Christian, he was not promising anything to God because he did not believe in Him. That was a marriage. He left and broke his vows. I do not want some cleric going through the details, nor would I want some poor cleric to receive the sort of letter my ex would send in a response to a request for cooperation. I can’t envisage wanting another relationship, let alone a marriage, but if that were to change, then my current Church would receive me to communion as a repentant sinner.
As such, I am in a very poor position to start throwing stones at others. It may be my sinfulness, it may be my weakness, but I crave the compassion my own church offers. If that sort of love were to reenter my life, I should not have either to say my marriage was no marriage, or that I would live with a new husband like a sister.
Muddled and confused? Yes, I am. But life is like that for so many of us. I’d love the simple certainties that others have, but don’t have them. So don’t be too harsh on those of us who find in Anglicanism a Christian church which nurses its poor, hurt children – and their broken hearts.
All Along the Watchtower 
Bless you Jess. Psalms 34:18 comes to mind. I shall pray for you.
S
LikeLike
Thank you S 🙂 x
LikeLike
Dear Jessica,
What an honest and heartfelt statement; God bless you for it.
LikeLike
I may have said too much, but your words are balm in Gilead – thank you 🙂 x
LikeLike
Jess, my wife is in charge of getting all the paperwork together for divorce proceedings to be submitted to the Marriage Tribunal for her Church and I have guided a number of divorced and remarried persons to the procedure. It is sometimes swift and at other times quite lengthy: 3 years was about the longest. It is not as you have described it at all. It is private and is no more painful than is a good Confession that you already embrace. Airing these things to a bunch of clerics is sort of a ‘worldly’ view of what the Tribunal does. Yes, there are some legalistic matters to consider such as whether it was a Sacramental marriage or if both persons entered into matrimony with the proper intent and it is time consuming. With the number of divorces increasing exponentially around the world the Catholic Church would love to get out from under all the paperwork and do as the Anglican Church has done: but it can’t because it is a Holy thing (holy matrimony) and as a sacrament of the Church needs be regulated by the authorities of the Church. It is up to the Church to try to discern whether a Sacramental marriage has occurred or not: who else is there that can or should discern such things? Certainly not the people themselves.
I have also heard it said often enough that the ex-spouse would never cooperate in filling out the forms. I have found that to be mostly untrue. I would say as a guess than probably 9 out of 10 do. Also, it is not absolutely necessary to find or get cooperation from the other spouse to gain a Decree of Nullity. There are many things to consider: for a Sacramental Marriage must be between 2 Baptized persons, open to life and aware of what the Sacrament of Marriage entails. Questions as to previous marriages, even ‘common law’ marriages are important in the procedure. It is simply a way for the Church to get all the information that you can provide to try to get the information needed to discern whether a marriage (which the Church always validates) was a Sacramental marriage (which the Church can nullify).
The procedure is rather cathartic for those who have been through it. Instead of all the ‘legalistic talk’ it is as healing a process as is a good Confession. It also makes quite vivid what one needs to make a marriage sacred and proves a great help to preventing another divorce from occurring. In this way it helps people get out of the rut they are in and move on in their lives unencumbered by all the traumatic effects of the previous marriage.
Note also that you are still a Catholic in good standing and may receive the other Sacraments as long as you are not remarried. Simply being divorced has no bearing on the situation. One only needs to seek a Decree of Nullity once a person desires to remarry. Most people do not understand these things within the Church and are almost a clueless as those outside the Church.
LikeLike
Thank you, dear, dear friend – that is comforting 🙂 x
LikeLike
I know how difficult this must be for you, my friend as I have seen the reluctance of people to seek a Decree of Nullity from the Church. Just know that it is more like a soothing balm than a ‘grilling’ by Churchmen. In fact, most never even meet with the Tribunal face to face. Most of it is done via paperwork submitted by the local Church and you will have someone (sometimes the priest) who will guide you through the procedure.
I too will pray for you and for your healing during these dark times. God bless you.
LikeLike
Thank you – I am on a late lunch hour, so must get back – but – well, just thanks you 🙂 xx
LikeLike
🙂 xx
LikeLike
I won’t go into all the ins and outs of how I feel. I am in much the same spot as you, of course, although older. I feel much the same, although my wounds are not nearly as fresh, they still exist. I think you have found safe harbor, and thank God for it.
You are, and will remain, as always, in my prayers, dearest friend.
LikeLike
🙂 xx thank you, dearest friend – now I must finish lunch 🙂
LikeLike
🙂 xx Indeed you must, can’t have you wasting away any more, dearest friend!! 🙂
LikeLike
I struggle to say anything other than God bless you, Jess. A heartrending post.
LikeLike
Thank you 🙂 x
LikeLike
Others have said what I say lass – my heart goes out to you. A brave post.
LikeLike
Thank you 🙂 x
LikeLike
Grace filled and courageous describe your words and hearts. The Lord bless you!
LikeLike
Thank you 🙂 x
LikeLike
What a dark and perverted understanding this issue. We all seek compassion at times during our lives. But as usual you have mixed truth with banal attacks that are completely unwarranted. The truth is this: that true compassion might better be found in the Catholic faith where one gets the same closure from a divorce as one might get from a proper funeral. It lays to rest the pain and allows one to come to grips with the situation and is not just acting as though nothing has happened to one of our members. It is a traumatic event in a persons life and must be treated in a most delicate and most compassionate way. In my understanding the Catholic method is far superior than the Anglicans: though compassion (however they see the methodology of their own system) is at the heart of both. The difference is what happens after compassion. In one system the event is eventually forgotten by the Church and one is is left alone to deal with the pain. In the other there is healing and a chance to put this pain behind one and feel the weight of this burden relieved. That to me is the difference. I cannot criticize those who have a different idea of what is most effective in dealing with a parishioner’s pain. Both can be useful but one must decide whether there is, or should be, a final resolution to their hurt and their re-incorporation into the Church (if they are remarried – or plan to be). Otherwise we are all called to compassion for our fellow man. Let’s not make light of the love we are asked to have for one another.
LikeLike
I salute you. C 451
LikeLike
My salute is returned as well.
LikeLike
Thank you both, gentlemen. Back from work and reading with interest. 🙂 x
LikeLike
You are most welcome my lady. 🙂 x
LikeLike
Thank you, gentil knight 🙂 x
LikeLike
On a personal aside, Jess. If you have any questions concerning the Catholic Annulment procedure my wife is an excellent resource. If you like, you can inquire using my email and I will let here address your concerns personally. Just an idea as I am not sure if you are interested in this at all for the time being. But it is an offer nevertheless. 🙂
LikeLike
One for which I am most grateful too 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Feel free when or if you are inspired to do so. 🙂 xx
LikeLike
I most certainly will – and thank you – again and again 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis – the Catholic idea of ‘annulment’ is, as Jessica puts it (although much more delicately), just plain hypocrisy. There is nothing superior about hypocrisy. I don’t know what the Anglican position actually is, but if I were you I wouldn’t boast about hypocrisy.
Of course, I understand why you’re forced into this; the Church of Rome feels that it has to turn Holy Scripture into a convenient set of rules. They fill volumes setting down the rules, discovering that they need something more nuanced, so they amend the rules to take account of this that or the other, etc …. etc … etc …..
Is this really what Jesus intended to become of his words when he spoke them?
It is clear and plain to anybody with a brain that the Sermon on the Mount (one of the key places where Jesus mentions divorce) is supposed to be an eschatological statement, presenting an ideal that is clearly too high and too hard to maintain in this life. I’d say that this is clear of the other places where he mentions divorce and pretty much most of what he teaches. This unattainability shouldn’t stop us from trying – but we should be clear that he never intended his words to be turned into the sort of rule book that the Catholic church turned it into.
The logical conclusion of the RC approach is necessarily hypocrisy; this is necessarily what will happen if you try to take the words of Jesus and make them the basis of a written moral code to be implemented here and now, codified in a set of clauses all nicely sub-paragraphed and cross referenced. If you do this, then clearly you can’t have divorce because the bible says so. Then, if you’re at all humane in your thinking, you see situations where there clearly has to be some provision for divorce. Oh dear me. What do we do? Ah ha. Let’s call it by something completely different; let’s use the term ‘annulment’, a word that is never used in Scripture (and which therefore isn’t prohibited by Scripture) and make it mean exactly the same thing as divorce – and we’ll use ‘annulment’ in those situations where we consider that divorce should be reasonably allowed.
In this way you make a mockery of Scripture; permitting divorce provided you don’t call it divorce but instead call it ‘annulment’ is hypocrisy pure and simple – and that is more or less what Jessica was saying.
Perhaps at this stage, when you’ve reached an impasse that can only be resolved by a level of hypocrisy, it would be advisable for you to re-think the way you approach Scripture.
LikeLike
Your thinking is simply “your” thinking Jock and has no semblance of understanding (which claim to have) of what the Church teaches. In the first place divorce and annulment are not the same thing just as common law marriage, civil marriage and sacramental marriage are not the same thing. There is much more to this subject than I would ever be able to relate to you in such a short space but suffice to say that the Church is only concerning itself in the validity of Sacraments not in the validity of a marriage itself: which it accepts no matter if were sacramental or not. God is the one who binds spouses in Holy Matrimony and the two spouses are the ones who take the vows. It is only good and common sense that the Church should use its brain when deciding whether all of the requirements for a sacrament have been met and that is what a Decree of Nullity concerns (which is not in the Bible – so what?). Rationally if both persons are not Baptized into the faith, is there a sacramental form of marriage? If one of the spouses has no intention of keeping the vows, is it a valid sacramental marriage? If one is too young or completely uneducated as to what a vow is or was forced into marriage by a family arrangement, was the sacrament valid? And there are many other rational reasons that make the sacramental form of marriage null and void. Who else should one seek an answer from concerning the validity of a Church Sacrament, Jock? The state? A friend? The Mayor? the President? No, the Church is the proper venue for settling the question. For without the Church there is nothing other than civil or common law marriage. Only within the Church is there a thing which we consider a Sacrament.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis – well, pardon me for thinking (which I didn’t really do, but never mind). I understand that this is frowned upon in your tradition.
No – I’m well aware that technically ‘divorce’ and ‘annulment’ are not supposed to be the same thing – but you’ll have great difficulty finding a decent biblical definition of ‘annulment’, because it isn’t there. To which you say ‘so what?’ – to which I reply that this illustrates that you’re making it up as you go along. The way it gets used is quite clear; people want a divorce, but they don’t want to call it a divorce.
When Jesus spoke about marriage was he talking about ‘the sacramental form of marriage’? In Scripture I’ve only ever seen one form of marriage spoken about. It’s the marriage that takes place between a man and a woman when they commit themselves to each other – and it doesn’t depend on any sacrament. I didn’t see Jesus talking about a sacramental form of marriage (as opposed to any other form of marriage) or worrying his head about whether the sacraments had been duly met when the marriage took place.
When he met the woman at the well in John 4, he told her that she had had 5 husbands and it’s fairly clear from the context that he wasn’t referring to a sacramental form of marriage. He never said ‘but they don’t really count because sacramentally they were not in order’. This sacramental form of marriage that you write about exists within ‘The Church’, but doesn’t seem related to anything that Jesus ever had to say about marriage.
The concrete example here is Jessica, since she chose to share this aspect of her private life. In this case, she was married – properly married by any biblical standards (although quite probably not good enough for the Church of Rome). Christians guided by the Holy Spirit would say that after her husband left her for another woman, God Himself had severed all links between them and that she is entirely free to marry again. This is a valid understanding of the ‘except for marital infidelity’ statement that Jesus makes in Matthew. She is divorced and free to marry again. She doesn’t need someone from The Church to make a careful study of the sacramental aspects of the situation and to approve of something that God has already approved of; she also doesn’t need annulment of these sacramental aspects that aren’t well supported by Scripture in any case.
LikeLike
Jock, I have no problem with you ‘thinking’ but apparently you seem to have a problem with the Church being able to think.
And you won’t find a definition of a Sacrament in the Bible or an explanation of the 3 Divine Persons of the Trinity or an explanation of the 2 Natures of our Lord Jesus Christ; which proves absolutely nothing as to the development of our understanding of these things by the use of the faculty of reason which is what the Creator did endow the us with: being created in His image and likeness. We don’t want to call Annulment ‘divorce’ because by any definition that you might look up they are apples and oranges – it is simply ridiculous that you want to conflate what the Church Herself does not.
As to the Woman at the Well: the Church never says that a marriage (no matter what form, is not a marriage. Since the ministers of marriage are the spouses and the action performed is a binding by God we accept every marriage as valid civilly and socially but must examine the intentions of the ministers if we are to see whether the parties entered into this permanent state in good faith and in full knowledge of what is meant by a Sacramental marriage. Do you expect that a Buddhist wedding or an African tribal marriage or a state marriage or a marriage for wealth or status should carry the weight of being a Sacrament? In other words is this Holy Matrimony or is it a civil contract? Is there a difference? This will require you to do some more thinking which seem to think you do better than the Church. Also, when Christ spoke to the woman at the well had the Church been instituted and endowed with the Holy Spirit to grow and to expound on His words? Is Christianity stagnant to a particular day during the life of Christ or is Christ still living and operating and speaking to us through the Church? Your ideas of Christianity (should that be the case) is a relic without any hope that the principles that Christ laid down can be further applied to modern civilizations and to the challenges that face us in the light of the sciences or the novel ideas of what is moral and immoral.
Jess’s marriage was valid and the Catholic Church (as stated several times by me) accepts that marriage as valid. So your snarky comment of it not being good enough for the Church of Rome is just your prejudice being used to slander what you know little about.
If she were Catholic, she and her husband would have been expected to understand the Holiness of the institution (which I gather Jess understood though her husband did not). If a sacramental union was proved to have taken place (intentions of each of the spouses is required since they are the ministers of the Sacrament) you are right: they would be banned from the other Church Sacraments as they would have proven their disregard to the Sacrament of Marriage. So what is the point of receiving another Sacrament if you do not take them seriously? In that case the hypocrisy you spoke of earlier is the hypocrisy of those who entered into Holy Matrimony without any intention to gain the grace to fulfill their vows. Now divorce is not some ‘scarlet letter’ on the head of a divorced person in the Church as you seem to think it is. It does not effect the person in relation to the Church or their reception of other Sacraments unless they intend to take another spouse while they are ‘Sacramentally’ still married. That is purpose of the Tribunal: to discern whether there were any impediments that effected the Sacramental nature of the marriage vows.
You are right about the clearness of Jess’s case as we understand it. It is called the Pauline Privilege and is definitely a reason to call the Sacrament of the marriage null and void. It does not invalidated the civil contract etc. as that must be done via divorce proceedings as instituted by the state.
How do you know that God has already approved of a situation. Have you now placed yourself in the position of one who has his ear to the mouth of God and can make this judgment though you do not have nearly enough information from both parties to the truth of your knee-jerk response. I would find it much more satisfactory to leave the protection of the Sacraments of the Church to the Authorities of the Church. That is not my call, your call or the call of Jess and her ex-husband: as they are not charged in the guardianship of these things.
I never read that I shouldn’t thrust a stick in my eye in the Bible either. I wonder if I should, since it is not mentioned. The use our intellect is a good thing; even when it is the Church who is using their intellect.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis – OK …. here goes. I’ll try to keep it short.
1) Yes, I do have a major problem with ‘The Church’ as an entity being able to think. I see that when it does ‘think’, it often gets the wrong answer. It isn’t the case here that the sum is better than the individual components.
When you go down this line, one consequence is ‘The Church’ as a whole repenting of things that ‘The Church’ did in previous ages. Who am I to repent on behalf of someone else? As far as I’m concerned, it makes a mockery of the whole issue of repentance.
2) As far as Sacraments go – yes, you’re right, you don’t find a definition in Scripture, which is why I’m extremely wary of them, or at least what The Church has done with them. As far as I can see, a believer is expected to be baptised; this demonstrates his obedience to our Lord, ‘believe and be baptised’ (that is the order that Scripture gives, believe first, then be baptised) and it also acts as a great witness. I was baptised during the period I was living in Ireland. I didn’t have to say anything – the whole town knew that I had been baptised the previous Sunday in my local baptist church. Any theology of sacraments is entirely irrelevant to me; I simply did this because Scripture told me to. Similarly, with bread and wine. I partake of it because Scripture tells me to. Any Sacramental theology is something that I consider to be a matter for theological big cheeses that doesn’t affect me. I simply participate because Scripture tells me to.
From the rest of your post – it seems to me that this actually defines and characterises the difference. I don’t see where you get Marriage as a Sacrament from.
With apologies to Jessica for continuing the example – perhaps Jessica could (if she wanted) get an annulment on the grounds that the other party wasn’t a Christian (she stated this) and that therefore the Sacrament is null and void.
What do you make of exactly the same thing happening between two Catholics – where it isn’t possible to claim that one of them wasn’t a proper Catholic and it isn’t possible to claim that at least one of them engaged in the sacramental part in an unworthy manner?
The reason I ask – I know someone here who seems to be in the process of having his life destroyed by his Catholic beliefs. He married someone who appeared to be a nice Catholic girl, who then walked out on him for another man. It’s a case similar to the one where Jessica found herself, except that the other party was solidly Catholic – so you can’t claim that there was a problem with the sacrament. He seems to have taken advice from his local parish priest (or whoever is supposed to be pastoring him) and, because of his religion, believes that he is bound to remain a single man for the rest of his life. He reached this understanding at the age of 30.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t know where to start with all this Jock as we could go on for months speaking about how Sacraments have come about – and we see there development in the Church very early on. I don’t want to go there as there are many resources for you to read if you haven’t already — and I am supposing you have but don’t accept the explanations and therefore I would be wasting my time.
Yes, Catholics do make mistakes and their intentions are not always what is necessary and intended for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. So the Tribunal is for everyone. I had a friend who married a girl from Germany suddenly and I said that it seemed rather quick. His reply was that if it didn’t work out he’d just get a divorce. That attitude in and of itself is important in understanding that he had not intention to enter into a lifelong relationship with his wife. Funny thing, today he’s divorced. Who would have guessed? 🙂
LikeLike
1)
A. It is wrong because it is not what you would conclude and in your mind you are always right and the conclusion of the Church is always wrong. Brilliant.
B. A mockery of repentance: which I suppose is why your church has never repented and in your mind has never violated any Biblical teaching – pure as snow.
Didn’t want to ignore your first 2 paragraphs, Jock. 🙂
LikeLike
Servus – yes – I had this difficulty with you before – impossible to discuss anything with you, because you misrepresent the other fellow.
I don’t think you do this deliberately – there’s a mindset there that is simply impossible to get through. That’s what Catholicism does to rather many people.
LikeLike
. . . and a few hard headed Protestants, methinks. 🙂
LikeLike
Servus – but unfortunately it means that it isn’t possible to have a decent discussion with you. I came to this conclusion before – and it is a matter of some regret.
LikeLike
Well, it is a sad fact Jock. I think I’ve about decided the same. Too bad but there seems to be no room for discussion with you either. It seems I don’t have that problem with others so maybe we simply have a personality conflict that is insurmountable.
LikeLike
You both bring a great deal to AATW, and perhaps it is best to say, as you are, that there are limits to what we can do by way of mutual understanding – but not mutual respect, as I have the utmost respect (and affection) for you both 🙂 xx Jess
LikeLike
Kind of you to say Jess. 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Well deserved, I’d say.
As we explore the limits of real ecumenism here, we shouldn’t be surprised when we sometimes find them. You have both articulated your differing positions with great clarity – to the benefit of all readers. You have both behaved as you always do – with great courtesy, whilst not hesitating to tell it as you see it. 🙂 xx
LikeLike
I do believe we both are at least attempting to do so. I’m glad you think so as well even though we do not always succeed. 🙂 xx
LikeLike
You are both perfectly sincere and honest, and we just have to accept, sometimes, that we have differences which can only be acknowledged with mutual respect. 🙂 xx
LikeLike
That is true, my friend. 🙂 xx
LikeLike
I really appreciate what you both bring – and your help, dear friend, with the specific issue I raised 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Thank you Jess, though any small help I can offer is certainly my pleasure should it be of any comfort or use to you.
LikeLike
I shall be in touch, dear friend 🙂 x
LikeLike
That would be fine, dear lady. 🙂 x
LikeLike
Thank you 🙂 xx
LikeLike
🙂 xx
LikeLike
Jock, if you want to get the basics of Catholic teaching on this subject, please look over the following before jumping to conclusions.
November 3
Submit
Find Mass Times
Request Prayer
Pastoral Letter
Home
Get Involved
Prayer & Sacraments
Parishes
Education
Donate
About Us
Videos
News & Events
Offices & Agencies
Questions about Marriage, Divorce and Nullity
1. What is the Catholic Church’s understanding of marriage?
Marriage is a covenant by which a man and woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, which of its very nature is ordered to the well being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children.
2. When is a marriage a Sacrament?
A validly contracted marriage is raised to the level of a sacrament solely by virtue of the fact that both parties are validly baptized. This is true even between two baptized non-Catholics. Through the grace of baptismal status, Christ himself raises a marriage to sacramental dignity. Marriages between a baptized and an unbaptized person can be valid and binding even though not a sacrament.
3. What is a declaration of nullity?
A declaration of nullity, also called an annulment, is a judgment made by a Tribunal of the Catholic Church thaton the basis of evidentiary proof a given relationship was not a binding marriage in the way the Catholic Church understands marriage to have been established by Almighty God. Here, it has been proven either that one of the essential elements of marriage or the necessary personal capacity for competent consent was lacking at the time the parties wed. Therefore, a relationship which may have approximated marriage according to civil or social standards is deemed not to have been a binding marriage in the way marriage was ordained by Almighty God.
4. What is the difference between divorce and an ecclesiastical decree of nullity?
Divorce indicates that the lived experience of a couple’s partnership has been irremediably damaged. Divorce puts an end to the binding contractual relationship which exists between spouses relative to civil law. From the Church’s point of view, divorce merely indicates that the lived experience of a couple’s partnership has been severed. Divorce has no capacity to alter the binding nature of the marital contract or covenant a couple creates by their exchanged consent.
A decree of nullity issued by a Tribunal of the Catholic Church is a judgment based on proof that, because of some personal incapacity or because of the exclusion of some essential element of marriage, a valid and binding marital bond, as ordained by Almighty God, was never created between the two parties.
5. If the Church teaches that marriage is forever, how can annulments be granted?
The Catholic Church believes that a valid and consummated marital bond between two baptized persons cannot be severed by any entity, civil or religious. However, there are circumstances in which what may haveappeared to have been a marriage between two persons was never in fact a binding covenant, either because of personal incapacity for consent or because one of the essential elements of marriage was excluded when the parties gave their consent.
6. Can I seek a decree of nullity if I’ve been married a long time or have children?
Yes. A Tribunal investigation examines the capacity of the parties for sufficient and proportionate marital consent at the time the consent was given. Whether a couple’s partnership lasts a few months or for several years and whether or not a couple bore children are not always determinant issues.
7. Does a decree of nullity make children illegitimate?
NO! The law of the Catholic Church never denies the factual or historical existence of the parents’ relationship, nor does it deny that it may have been a binding marriage by civil or social standards. Hence, the Catholic Church’s law deems that any children born of a relationship which was presumed by at least one of the parents to be a valid and binding marriage at the time are to be considered legitimate, even if at a later time the marital bond is proven to have been invalid and null.
8. Can a divorced Catholic receive the Sacraments?
YES! Divorce only indicates that the lived experience of a couple’s partnership has ended. As long as a divorced person has not initiated any subsequent marital or similar relationship with another partner and as long as he or she is, according to one’s conscience, in the state of grace, there is nothing preventing him or her from sacramental participation.
9. Can a divorced person remarry in the Catholic Church?
Only if, through a Tribunal process, that person’s previous marriage has been proven to have been null can a divorced person be considered free to exchange marital consent with a new spouse.
10. Can I still be a part of the Church if I am remarried without a declaration of nullity?
The choice to remarry without having received a declaration of nullity concerning one’s prior marital bond sets a person apart from the Church with regard to full sacramental participation. One cannot receive Holy Communion when one’s lifestyle is not in communion with the teachings of the Catholic faith. Still, there is grace to be gained through participation in Sunday worship, particularly in the nourishment that comes from God’s Word, the Homily, the Church’s devotional piety, community fellowship and other aspects of Catholic life.
11. Why would a non-Catholic need a decree of nullity from the Catholic Church?
The Catholic Church recognizes all marriages between non-Catholics to be valid and binding as long as they meet civil requirements about the way consent is to be exchanged. A divorced non-Catholic, in order to seek marriage with a Catholic in the Catholic Church, must be considered free to marry. This requires that the whole of his or her life and marital history be brought into harmony with the teaching of the Catholic faith to which the Catholic intended spouse adheres. Hence, if the non-Catholic has previously been married, that first marital bond must be proven null before he or she can be considered free to marry anew.
12. Do I have to contact my former spouse? What if he/she will not cooperate or cannot be contacted?
Ecclesiastical law requires that the rights of both spouses be protected. This demands that every legitimate effort be made to contact the former spouse and allow his/her participation in the Tribunal process. If a former spouse truly cannot be found or chooses not to participate, the Tribunal process continues. There is no need for the parties to have direct contact with one another.
13. Are witnesses necessary during a formal investigation?
Yes. The law of the Catholic Church requires that all allegations of marital nullity be substantiated and wholly corroborated by the testimony of witnesses who had knowledge of the parties prior to and at the time of their wedding. These witnesses can include family and friends, as well as counselors.
14. How do I begin?
It is best to begin with your parish Priest, who will assist you in formulating your initial application. Then the Tribunal will send you the appropriate questionnaire as well as assign you the assistance of an Advocate for the remainder of the process.
15. Does applying for an annulment assure me of getting one?
No. Every marriage is presumed to be valid and binding until proven otherwise. The process of proving nullity is not an effort to assess blame for marital breakdown, but to understand its root causes and to determine whether it resulted from an incapacity for competent consent or any other impediment to marriage. If the testimony provided during an investigation is inconclusive or insufficiently probative, a declaration of nullitycannot be issued.
LikeLike
Yep ….. you know, Servus, you’re not giving us (at least me) any information that we didn’t have before.
It’s all based on a particular understanding of the sacraments and a servile view of the relation between church-goer and priest.
LikeLike
The difference in the way you ‘think’ and I ‘think’ is that you seem to think that each individual at each moment in time has the same advantage and intelligence of thought than all who went before him whilst I think that 2000 years of writing down the thinking of others is helpful so that we don’t have to start from ground zero each and every time some argument or question arises.
LikeLike
Of course Christ Himself came to serve and show us obedience – even obedience of the Cross. So yes, we are all servants and ‘servile’ to something in life. I am guilty of wanting to live in accordance to the teachings of the Church and am content to be a servant of God as I am hoping all ‘good’ priests do as well. We are not a Church of a mob of individuals who are equal in all things: some are more intelligent, some are further along in their spirituality, some are teachers and leaders and some are learners and followers. We have been given different talents and they are not of equal value. Those with more, need give more while those with less can still give all they have to Christ. Obedience of faith is not a disease: it is a cure for the self-absorption of fallen man who always thinks he knows best.
LikeLike
I am not quite sure which sin it is which I lack the strength to overcome?
LikeLike
Well none of us has the strength or the ability to overcome sin without Grace. But there is no sin great enough that remission of that sin by our Lord should we repent and ask. So I have no idea what he is referring. The only unforgivable sin is to believe that God cannot or will not forgive the sinner of a sin. So we all have the strength to overcome sin by the Grace of God: it only takes and exercise of our freewill to avail ourselves of Confession and believe that God has heard our Confession and forgiven us – truly wiping away our tears so that we no longer carry the burden. Sounds like QVO doesn’t believe in the basics of the Catholic teaching to me.
LikeLike
I too am all broke up over this post my child. If, maybe, perhaps one day the Pope will allow priests to marry, we too can savor the touch of another mans arms….oops, i mean if the priest is gay, not me. Eh he. Im just so used to the fact that all the priests i come in contact with are all gay as blades. If they could marry, it would be to another guy. For me, i could just flip a coin to make my choice. Thank you Mary for the catholic priesthood
LikeLike
Moving words good friend. Your thoughts are worthy of our examining that compassion need be present within. Prayers and blessings.
LikeLike
Thank you, dear friend 🙂 x
LikeLike
Prayers, Jessica; I’m sorry that I have nothing more to offer.
LikeLike
That is a very great deal indeed, and I am most grateful for such an act of compassion.
LikeLike
You have my love, support, and prayers, too, Jess.
LikeLike
Thank you so much, dear friend 🙂 xx
LikeLike
One might suppose that the only human being absolutely unappreciative of the care and concern of others is a classic psychopath, and even they have the need if not the desire. Our species does not thrive alone and Scripture agrees with thar observation, seems to me.
Marriage is a contract specific to a man and a woman because it includes procreation as a founding element. It preexisted churches, the arrival of the firstborn human child who needed years of care demonstrated why divorce is so destructive to such contracts. All this plus the human qualities that produce divorces and all our other behaviors were built into us by our Creator and therefore, nothing that came as a surprise. The same situation has produced the various churches and their various views of Him and His rules and desires. This is indeed, from an overall view, a muddle. So we must muddle through according to our lights and doig so, will in justice and charity, succeed. No human can be held to more and that is the necessary equity position in all the churches so far as I know, save for those predestined.
That is the balance between those legs, I think; it can be called, being somewhat self-contradictory for a church, hypocrisy if one wishes that. But man is a divided creature, made so for the survival of his species (I believe) and that must be reflected in his churches if they are to reflect his Creator. So we live with it as best we can, and offer each other such support and compassion as we can to help us do so.
Well, maybe excepting those psychopaths…
Or so it seems to me.
LikeLike