Not married in Catholic church, need an annulmentgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
I am Catholic and I married a non-catholic. My husband had been married before in the Catholic Church (his first wife was Catholic), they were divorced but had never gotten an annullment. Of course we weren't married in the church, and at the time I was aware that I could no longer participate in the sacaraments. We were only married 3 years, and he would not get an annullment from his wife. We are now getting a divorce, do I need to get an annullment from him, or in the church's view were we never really married? Can I now go to confession?
-- Betsy Snyder (betsy@jednotapress.com), July 01, 1999
Betsy,here is a little story in the Bible: the Jews asked why Jesus ate with sinners, his reply , to call all sinners to repentance.
Why do you need to ask a man if you can confess your sins?
Christ said all sinners!
-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), July 01, 1999.
Betsy, Allow me to first state this: MICHAEL you do not know what you are talking about!!Now to the question at at hand. An annullment will be needed from the first marriage of your husband. As to an annullment for your upcoming divorce the answer is no due to what is termed Lack Of Form.
It is good you are feelng the needs for sacraments with confession being a needed start. Perhaps a retreat if possible would be a nice way of returning home.
Peace And Well Being A Little Brother In Christ
Jean Bouchard
-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 01, 1999.
Hi,Basically yes that is correct since your husbands first marriage was never annuled then you could not validly marry him. So no marriage really took place. But I would suggest that you talk with your pastor and maybe ask the Marriage Tribunal to make that declaration since Canon Law states that a Marriage is to be assumed valid until the Church Tribunal declares otherwise. That way if you were to want to marry in the future.
-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prosigy.net), July 01, 1999.
just wondering what annullments do for people in the catholic church. i am not catholic, but my ex-husband had an affair with a catholic girl and left me for her....she is working on an annullment and he is going to some time later this year. how do our children stand in the catholic church....do they not exist and won't go to heaven because they aren't actually here? i am a methodist i don't understand what this is all about. i don't care for myself but i have a problem for my kids....could you shed some light on this appreciate your help
-- jolene burch (lburch@amfam.com), July 28, 2001.
JmjHello, Jolene. Thank you for asking these questions. I hope that I can put your mind at ease.
The term "annulment" is not an official one. I don't use it, because it can be misleading.
When the Catholic Church, after a painstaking investigation, issues a Decree of Nullity, it states that, on the day of the taking of vows, no valid marriage really took place. In other words, God did not really "join together" the two people, because there was some kind of impediment -- something that prevented genuine consent from being given.I hope that you and your children will accept my feelings of regret and sadness about what happened. I know that the unfaithfulness of a spouse can be devastating. But have no fear about the status of your children. In their innocence, they suffer no penalty, and they have every hope of a heavenly reward. The Church does not declare children illegitimate when a Decree of Nullity is given. ("Legitimacy" is a term reserved to the secular government now.) I'm sure that your children are a great source of joy to you, and let us hope that you will be together with God one day for all eternity.
St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John
-- (jgecik@amdg.ihs), July 28, 2001.
This place is more and more like Dear Abbey lately. I find myself compelled to ask Jolene: If your husband leaves you for a girl he's having an affair with, and she needs to annul her first marriage; why would either of them call themselves Catholics?First, a Catholic woman isn't supposed to have affairs with married men. She herself must be married, or else what's she asking for an annulment for?
Does your husband think he'll get a hearing from the Catholic Church when he makes a sleazy move like this? What a scoundrel! OR--
Forgive my inquisitive sense of smell: Are you making all this up, to bash the Catholic Church? No part of what you've ''confided'' to this forum sounds very plausible to me, forgive me. Smells to high heaven!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 28, 2001.
JmjI have to admit, Gene, that there is always the possibility of us being "set up" in these cases, so I can understand your suspicion. (The phrase that seems implausible to me is, "our children ... do they not exist and won't go to heaven because they aren't actually here?"
What!? I decided to assume the best (a typographical error, or the like) and give a straight answer, rather than give Jolene a hard time.So I'll give you a hard time instead!!!
You asked, "If your husband leaves you for a girl he's having an affair with, and she needs to annul her first marriage; why would either of them call themselves Catholics? ... She herself must be married, or else what's she asking for an annulment for?
People often write "in shorthand," not telling about intervening events, passage of long periods of time, etc.. In other words, I would assume that both this Catholic man and the woman he wants to marry have now been divorced for some time. Yes, they committed a terrible sin -- perhaps while they were estranged from the Church. To be charitable, I will assume that they returned to the Church, confessed their sin, and have been reconciled to God -- making them "Catholics" in good standing. I will further assume that they have been living apart from one another, and are now trying to do what they have been told is the right thing -- determining whether or not their prior unions were null or not.
And that brings me to the terminology you used... You wrote, "she [is] asking for an annulment" and "she needs to annul her first marriage." Surely, you have seen me mention many times (including above) that we should not speak of an "annulment." The Church does not ANNUL (make null) anything. Likewise we cannot say that the "other woman" in this case "needs to ANNUL" anything. Rather, she requests that the Church determine if her union was null and void from her very wedding day. The man may do the same later. Under the circumstances that I have assumed, this would not be a "sleazy move" by him, and the Church would indeed consider the case. Such determinations by the Church are not "annulments." In fact, that English word should never even have been coined, since human beings cannot cause something that once existed to become null (i.e., to annihilate it, leaving no trace). It is not a spouse or the Church that "annuls" a putative union. Rather it is the set of facts that were in existence on the wedding day that may "annul" (render null) that "union."
I recommend that everyone approach these cases with genuine compassion -- but not "false compassion" -- and always try to assume the best about these troubled people. Keep in mind, too, that when folks describe cases here, they barely scratch the surface of the facts, and it is very easy to judge too harshly when we have only one side of the story. In the end, God will not be fooled, and those few who succeed in fooling marriage tribunals will live miserably and be judged harshly on the last day (unless they repent).
St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John
-- (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), July 29, 2001.
John, My Friend,In the vernacular, annul is a word everybody understands. Once more I'll caution you against appearing the pedant about other people's ups and downs. I prefer annul to the phrase ''decree of nullity.'' So do many others. Please don't correct me for something so slight
I'm also well aware of the Church's stance concerning valid and/or non-existant marriages, and how this differs very much from outright divorce. Some folks like Jolene insinuate it's just a ploy of the Church's, and that divorce is more to the point. I heartily disagree, as you also must.
There's a lot to be said for speaking low to people involved in these matters, for the sake of compassion and charity. In Jolene's post, I said I smelled an attempt at belittling Catholic canon law, and some haste to cry out that a ''Catholic girl'' was involved in an illicit affair. This is bashing, and I have a hard time turning the other cheek. If she's telling only the truth, let her say so. I'll post my apology immediately.
Do you like being Dear Abbey? Who wouldn't get impatient with some of these banal postings?
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 29, 2001.
JmjGene,
Please get used to my insisting on the use of correct terminology, because I won't stop insisting. And it is not a "pedantic" act. That label ("pedant") is an easy, throw-away to use on anyone who corrects us when we are wrong.I don't correct errors for the fun of it. (I have better things to do with my time!) I have explained more than once (including just above) that, especially to non-Catholics, the words "annul" and "annulment" falsely imply ACTION taken IN THE PRESENT to CAUSE something to happen -- to turn SOMETHING into NOTHING. Now since those words, "annul" and "annulment," imply false concepts to many people, it is unwise (I would even say "improper") to use them. I don't care a whit whether they are "in the vernacular" or not. If they are wrong to use, they are wrong even if 90% of the people use them. Those words do not appear in the Cathechism nor in the Code of Canon Law, because they are WRONG to use. I am doing my part to establish a new, more accurate, vernacular!
This is not a "slight" matter. I do overlook lots of "slight" matters here, without correcting people, because I desire not to be a "pedant."You asked, "Do you like being Dear Abbey? Who wouldn't get impatient with some of these banal postings?"
I can't get impatient with them, because they are all coming from different people. These are often people in deep need, in pain, etc. -- who don't know where to turn, don't know what their rights are, etc.. Yes, it is somewhat repetitious and not thrilling, but I would rather answer the questions to help people than let their posts stack up on the "Unanswered questions" queue. Have you considered not reading threads that touch on this subject, since they are so "banal?"St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John
-- (jgecik@amdg.ihs), July 29, 2001.
John, --My first impulse is to say, ''Yes, Master.''In order not to sound too sarcastic, I'll only say this: Save it.
Whatever it is you're going to insist, just save it for when we meet face to face. It's too easy to pull these little smart-aleck tricks over the Internet. I'm a grown-up who says what he's inclined to. If it's going to be over your objections, so be it. You have lately been showing signs of neurosis, John, and I've been very reluctant to correct YOU, when you needed it. Be as kind to me, for old times sake. We'll remain good friends that way. Thanks, and God be with you!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 29, 2001.
John, --I'm glad I've managed to get back to this thread quickly this Monday morning, before you've ''digested'' my last post. You might have then decided to reply in the same spirit.But God's grace gives me a new day, a new beginning. I was thanking Him in prayer as I awakened, and went over the last things I said to you Sunday. Maybe I was overly defensive. I answered (in a hurry, my wife was belaboring me) without sufficient thought.
I take back the ''neurosis'' remark. In truth, I have neglected to correct a few things you've done over the last weeks, out of charity. But that's in the past.
''Smart Aleck'' isn't your style, so I take it back. Nevertheless, it's true that on the Internet it really takes no courage to be confrontational. When we disagree, it out to be gracefully. I disagree with your appraisal of annulment as terminology.
Though your own words, ''decree,'' etc., are proper, to me they're appropriate in court. In this medium, we don't have to be so picky. I can't see how the term annul is any misrepresentation, as commonly used. --Over some really ignorant move I make, I can take the heat.
Look at this: ''Those words do not appear in the Cathechism nor in the Code of Canon Law, because they are WRONG to use. I am doing my part to establish a new, more accurate, vernacular! This is not a "slight" matter.''
Doesn't that seem like an over-reaction? Why sound pedantic, if you don't mean to be? This is not a court of canon law, and neither you nor I have to come on like lawyers! You have previously stated AT me--''Rather, she requests that the Church determine if her union was null and void from her very wedding day. The man may do the same later. Under the circumstances that I have assumed, this would not be a "sleazy move" by him, and the Church would indeed consider the case. Such determinations by the Church are not annulments.''
If that's how you thought I should have conveyed it (to Jolene), you were only saying something we already know. We do speak in short-hand at times; that's what I did. I don't apologise for it. Not because of pride, but to remind everyone: This is not John Gecik's nor Eugene Chavez's private club. We are under no obligation to turn in our ''membership'' card for speaking freely.
God bless you and comfort you.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 30, 2001.
Jmj
Thanks, Gene.
I see that even the best (you) are temporarily susceptible to hypnotic suggestions that have been planted elsewhere [the "neurosis" bit]!
JFG
-- (jgecik@amdg.ihs), July 30, 2001.
That, my Dear JG --is close to a paranoid,/u> apprehension. Rid yourself of those notions. You are NOT a victim. I spoke from the heart, and as a human being was at fault (I have faulted myself) for saying ''neurosis''. It had nothing to do with ''hypnosis'' nor was it ''planted''. Settle down!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 31, 2001.
JmjOh, good grief, Gene!
You overlooked the exclamation point at the end of my last message, by which I intended to indicate that I was making a joke.
I have been wrongly accused of trying to read minds and psychoanalyze folks here, but I see that, even if it were true, I would be an amateur who would have very much to learn ("signs of neurosis," "paranoid apprehensions," etc.) from my California amigo!
Lighten up, please!
JFG
-- (jgecik@amdg.ihs), July 31, 2001.
We can do each other a favor by changing the subject. I said once before that if we allow our own feelings to be hurt over slights, whether real or imagined, there goes the franchise! I want to put a distance between this and the last few posts. God bless you for understanding!
-- euegene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 31, 2001.
I was born and raised a Catholic, and I was raised with these saying of if you have sex or if you get married out of the church or if you get married before you do your comformation it is this great sin. Well I am all grown up now, and listening to all these different religion and about whats right and wrong, Have lead me to believe that you do not need a religion to believe and or serve GOD, his son Jesus Christ, That all you need is your loyalty to him, and accept him as your Savior, I might not go to Church , but I pray with him in silence and I believe that he is listening and is thier and understand that I dont need someone other than, his spirituality,to guide me in the right direction, I have met more hipocrites and liars, and thieves and the worse of the worse in my 32yrs in life than I would ever want to know, and these are the same people that get up every Sunday to praise the Lord, only to leave Chruch, and use his name in vein, so before you decide to critize me and my comment, Stop and think of what I am trying to say, your not evil or commiting a SIN, if you do not go to Chruch, or get married out of the chruch, When God created us he knew we where not going to be perfect, he just wants us to be the best person we can be, and believe that some day their will be a place were we all can come together and enjoy life the way he originally intended it to be...so live your life to the fullest, but keep the Lord in your heart.....
-- Ana Chambers (alidomcas@yahoo.com), September 19, 2001.
Dear Ana,
This kind of advice is destructive. You might find it perfectly OK to live without a care for God'd divine Will. Because you don't KNOW or worry about His Will. It was given to us completely by Jesus Christ, whom you express great love for. Jesus told His followers: ''Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.'' Then you arrive to tell others, God made you imperfect, and all He asks is for you to be the best you can be. Then we can enjoy ''life to the fullest'', all of us together, someplace and someday.This is nonsense. Maybe it's good enough for you, because you're spiritually blind. (Funny you aren't blind to hipocrites and liars, and thieves and the worse of the worse in my 32yrs in life than I would ever want to know, and these are the same people that get up every Sunday to praise the Lord,'' --But lazy, and blind to the REAL obligations He has placed on you. YES, Ana-- You MUST go to Church; He commands it. You MUST be married lawfully; and for the Catholic it means IN the Church. How do we know this? Because we can't make the rules, like you think. You are to FOLLOW the rules of a good Christian, otherwise you'll be, Jesus called it, ''As the heathen and the publican.'' Know what heathens were, and publicans? They were the unteachable ones who wouldn't accept the Church. They became outsiders by their own choice. You seem to think you can advise others to make the same choice. But you go on ahead; ''enjoy life to the fullest''. Nobody's ever going to teach you. You know better than Jesus or the Church, or me. Knock yourself out, Ana!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 19, 2001.
JmjHello, Ana.
I noticed that you wrote these words: "I have met more hipocrites and liars, and thieves and the worse of the worse in my 32 yrs in life than I would ever want to know, and these are the same people that get up every Sunday to praise the Lord ..."
This leads me to mention two things to you:
(1) You might as well join those folks in church. One more hypocrite won't make much difference.
(2) If those who are going to Church every Sunday are liars, thieves, etc., just imagine how much worse they would be if they were not going to Church and receiving helpful instruction, graces, etc.. How much worse would they be? You are going to find out by observing how much worse you are going to become, if you cut the Church out of your life.We will pray for you Ana, through the intercession of your patron, St. Anne, the mother of the Mother of God.
God bless you.
John
-- (jgecik@amdg.ihs), September 19, 2001.
I know this couple who were married for three months things is not working out all unhappy as they want to be they both agree to annull what is the cost it no property,children discussin they do not have any it was told them it cost nothing then somthing what is the truth free or not and what's the cheapest
-- charles earl brown (licharlezey@aol.com), September 18, 2002.
I know this couple who were married for three months things is not working out all unhappy as they want to be they both agree to annull what is the cost it no property,children discussin they do not have any it was told them it cost nothing then somthing what is the truth free or not and what's the cheapest price
-- charles earl brown (licharlezey@aol.com), September 18, 2002.