Some answers, please!!!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I have this already posted but nobody had any comments or answers:

Hi there, let me first express appreciation for this forum. Great job!!!!

Anyway, here is my story: I am going through the annulment process at this time, all the papers are submitted to the local tribunal office and it is time to be reviewed before being sent to the arch diocese for the final go nogo.

History of my case, was married to my now ex wife at first by a JOP, and then six months later in the Catholic church. Four kids and 10 years later my ex decided to divorce me for another man (which was preceeded by years of committing adultery, lies...). This was over 8 years ago. Also, my ex got divorced from the man she left me for, and is getting ready to get married for the third time.

Since then I met an absolute wonderful lady, who is also catholic, and got engaged to her last August (she has never been married). Of course we are anxious to see if my annulment goes through to be able to have a church weeding.

According to my advocate, I had plenty of reason to have an annulment granted. However, comments made by the tribunal make me question if I have enough grounds for the annulment.

First question, does it look like I have sufficient grounds for an annulment? (The preliminary review stated Due Discretion, a claim I highly support, neither one of us knew what we were getting into.)

Second question, are there any other reasons that I may have overlooked (possibly something very obvious)?

Third question, would it be grounds for an annulment if one of the parties was not a believer at the time of marriage?

If you have any questions toward me to help clarify some issues here, I'll be more than happy to address any.

Thank you, Hans

-- Hans Sterl (hs_r2d2@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005

Answers

Hans, in your third question, what do you mean by "not a believer"? Were both persons baptized? If one was not, that could have a major effect on the Church's deliberations. Simply losing faith after being baptized would not, though.

With regard to your second question, it is not your responsibility to determine "reasons" or to worry about overlooking any. And it is not within our ability as distant observers to know what whether you overlooked anything. You answered the tribunal's questions. Now it is up to them to determine whether or not you entered into a valid marriage on your wedding day.

Hans, please do not refer to yourself as "engaged" to your new friend. You may still be married in God's eyes, meaning that you cannot be "engaged" now. Please prepare yourself mentally and spiritually to be unable to marry your new friend, because that may be the finding of the tribunal.

-- Geo. (McFarland@spanky.com), January 25, 2005.


Geo, thanks for taking time to respond to my questions.

To my question about faith...my ex displayed on lack of faith by getting married for her third time, not taking our children to church, by professing that she belongs to a different church now... It seems she is only religios if it suits her cause (whatever that is at the time).

And yes, you are right, is is up to the tribunal to determine the validity of my previous marriage.

On your comment about being engaged or not, I talked to several advocates, priests, and even to the tribunal if I could be engaged without the annulment. All answered me that it would be perfectly alright, just could not get married until the annulment is granted.

Peace be with you

-- Hans Sterl (hs_r2d2@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


To my question about faith...my ex displayed on lack of faith by getting married for her third time, not taking our children to church, by professing that she belongs to a different church now... It seems she is only religios if it suits her cause (whatever that is at the time).

But was she ever baptised? On your comment about being engaged or not, I talked to several advocates, priests, and even to the tribunal if I could be engaged without the annulment. All answered me that it would be perfectly alright, just could not get married until the annulment is granted.

The thing is, your marriage is legit unless proven otherwise. So basically getting engaged is like a married man getting engaged. It is for the moment, self desceiving.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 25, 2005.


It seems that committing adultery, getting "married" for the third time after 2 divorces, "changing" faith is no problem. But getting engaged while an annulment is pending gets the finger pointed at me. Where are your priorities? And are you even qualified to make statements like that over the statements of people who know better than you? Did you know when you point the finger at someone that three fingers are pointing back at you? Even if you look at it from non church law, it is perfectly OK to get engaged while still married.

Peace!!!!

-- Hans Sterl (hs_r2d2@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


Since engagement is a commitment to marry a specific person (reversible of course, but still a specific commitment), it is obvious that one cannot make such a commitment to one person while married to someone else.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 25, 2005.


Engagement is a promise not a contract. Last time I checked Canon Law does not prohibit engagement, only marriage w/o annulment.

I am quite dissappointed that all of you have not addressed any of my questions/concerns, and only been trying to bash me for being engaged. Can't wait to hear what you have to say to my ex.

A question to all of you, is any of you a priest or someone with a tribunal or any offical function in regard to the Catholic church?

-- Hans Sterl (hs_r2d2@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


Hans,

Paul M., the forum moderator, is, I think, the only one who's an officially designated member of the Catholic clergy. I believe he is a deacon, but I may be wrong. But he's not moderating or posting as part of that official role. This is a private forum, not an official forum of the Catholic Church. For some reason, Google seems to list links to this forum first when Catholic related questions are entered for a search. I tested this a week ago when we started receiving nearly daily questions relating to annulments and divorce. Folks are under the impression they can get official answers here. And while the forum regulars try very hard to provide officially correct answers, there are many questions that ask for judgement calls and that can only be answered by opinion, albeit well-informed opinions, but never-the-less nothing official as you seem to be seeking.

Hope that helps.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), January 25, 2005.


David, thanks for your reply.

I did not intend to be disrespectful to any of the readers/writers of this forum, I just wanted some constructive input or thoughts. After reading many of the letters I had the impression that this forum was a good place to get that accomplished (still think this is a great forum). I am well aware that this is not an official forum for the Catholic church.

I also wanted to point out that I did get the "approval" from many people of the Catholic church to get engaged before I even considered getting engaged to someone. I did not ask the opinion of people if it was right to do so or not, I did that already.

So, maybe there are still some people with opinions and comments I had asked for to start with.

Peace

-- Hans Sterl (hs_r2d2@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


Hans - from my viewpoint, the contributors on this forum are trying to answer your questions, but you don't seem to be listening. You don't appear to be looking for advice - merely affirmation of your personal opinions. And it matters little what your wife has done or is doing - two wrongs don't make a right. Whether you like it or not, you're still married, and making a promise to another lady is just not right (and I think you may secretly know it!). Why are you "engaged" anyway? Isn't your lady friend willing to wait for you?

-- Onlooker (voyeur@screen.com), January 25, 2005.

Hans;

In general, what happens in a relationship AFTER the marriage ceremony has little to do with the marriage itself being considered valid, unless it's some sort of IMMEDIATE behavior which can be used to show that an impediment existed at the time of the marriage.

For instance, at the time of the actual marriage, perhaps a wife was INTENDING to be a faithful wife and entered into the marriage with no thoughts of anything but being a good and faithful spouse. If, a year later she committed adultery, that would have nothing to do with the day she married. On the other hand, if she had been fooling around with the best man the night before the wedding took place, it's kind of obvious then that her intentions to form a valid holy covenant weren't there..= grounds for annulment.

The Church is concerned with the actual MARRIAGE itself..as in what was in people's minds and hearts on THAT day. That's why the questions on the application for annulment ask about your state of mind before the marriage, leading UP TO the marriage..did anyone in the family object "to the marriage"? "How soon after the marriage did problems arise"? Focus is around the timeline leading up to the marriage ceremony and immediately following it.

And so when you say that your wife had numerous adulterous affairs and now is divorced and remarried, although that is all very sad to hear, it has not much to do with a basis for annulment, as you have indicated that these things occured after the marriage had taken place.

I am also very concerned that you say that you were advised by clergy of the Catholic Church that it is acceptable to be engaged while waiting for a Tribunal decision on an annulment application. To suggest that this is "OK" is to suggest that a Catholic go ahead and make PLANS to re-marry before a ruling is given by the Tribunal.

Since the teaching of the Church is that UNTIL the Tribunal makes it's ruling, the Catholic who has made the application is still married. If the Tribunal were to say that people can be engaged while they were waiting, then they would be saying indirectly that "you are free to make plans to marry"..but you are NOT free to make such plans.

And more seriously, you may not be free. The Tribunal may not rule that your first marriage was invalid. How prudent is it then for you to be planning upon being married when you cannot be married?

This is not to beat up on YOU..but to caution you that whomever gave you such advice truly is mistaken..very much mistaken. If you do not believe our words on this matter..call your own Archdiocese office and ask for the Bishop's extension..when they connect you, I'm sure that the Bishop would be most interested to hear your question and give you the correct answer in return.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 25, 2005.



Hans,

Good luck with your annulment! Here are my thoughts on your questions:

First question, does it look like I have sufficient grounds for an annulment?

There is no way to tell from the short synopsis that you have given us. That is why you presumably filled out a lengthy questionaire and obtained statements from several witnesses. Nothing you have told us indicates a slam dunk annulment or conversely an obviously valid marriage; it could go either way.

Second question, are there any other reasons that I may have overlooked (possibly something very obvious)?

Whenever a marriage has been convalidated, the ground of "defective convalidation" should always be considered. Unlike the other grounds, which require you to demonstrate a definite problem, this ground only requires you to demonstrate the absence of a good property. (I didn't say this very well, but the basic idea is that the "bar" is set very low for the ground of defective convalidation, whereas in the other grounds, the "bar" is set much higher.) Which wedding ceremony did you and your wife consider to be the "real" one, the civil marriage or the Catholic convalidation? Which date did you celebrate as your anniversary? Did both you and your spouse have a very clear understanding and feeling that you weren't really married at all until the Catholic convalidation took place?

Given your wife's many indiscretions, another ground to consider is her "intention against fidelity".

Third question, would it be grounds for an annulment if one of the parties was not a believer at the time of marriage?

The ground that is related to a loss of faith is "intention against sacramentality". I believe that this requires more than a mere loss of faith to establish, however.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


I also wanted to point out that I did get the "approval" from many people of the Catholic church to get engaged before I even considered getting engaged to someone.

No one in the Church can approve an action that objectively contravenes definitive Church teaching...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 26, 2005.


Hans, last time I told you, Hans, please do not refer to yourself as "engaged" to your new friend. You may still be married in God's eyes, meaning that you cannot be "engaged" now.

You countered by saying, I talked to several advocates, priests, and even to the tribunal if I could be engaged without the annulment. All answered me that it would be perfectly alright

I think that you were shocked to see that all of the following then agreed with my original comments and explained to you that the "advocates, priests, and even the tribunal" were wrong: DJ, Paul M, Onlooker, Lesley, Daniel.

All five of those people were correct, as you ought to be able to see by simple logic. Obviously, a man who is living with his wife cannot get "engaged" to a second woman until his wife dies. In like manner, a man who is living separately from his wife (i.e., a divorced man from a valid marriage, as may be true in your case) also cannot get engaged until his wife dies.

Hans, you apparently live in a diocese in which people upon whom you ought to be able to rely ("advocates, priests, and even the tribunal") are insufficiently educated -- or are well-educated, but reject the Church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Such dioceses, regrettably, do exist.

-- Geo. (McFarland@spanky.com), January 26, 2005.


Mark, thanks for your reply. It was quite informative! This is what I had expected in the first place to receive. You made your point but also had some useful information, especially should it come to the point that I need to go further with my petition (and I did not feel like I was being bashed).

A few points:

I am well aware, and have been for about 9 years, that in the eyes of our Good Lord I am still married to the mother of my children. It is a knowledge that has been bothering me for the same amount of time.

My fiancee and I both know that if my petition for annulment is denied that we can't and will not get married (I guess you could call it a conditional engagement). We both believe that it would not be the right thing to do to, even just to get married by a JOP.

Let's look at two scenarios: First, my petition is granted. In that case I was never "married" and therefore it would be perfectly alright to be engaged, no harm done.

Second, my petition is denied. In that case I am still "married" and will break off the engagement (and yes, my fiancee realizes that). Any harm done? Probably not since I have not committed adultery, only had a conditional intent.

I was very surprised to read some of the comments; almost like some of you got offended my my statements. I did not intend to offend anyone, nor did I want some justifiction, just wanted some advise. I honestly believe that my petition should be granted (the only one who really knows is The Good Lord and He will do the right thing), and because of that I just like to be prepared for any action I can take to assure my my best shot at it.

Peace

-- Hans Sterl (hs_r2d2@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


Hans,

You're very welcome. Again, I wish you well in going through your annulment process.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.



Hans,

If your case is not decided by the Roman Rota you will get an unreliable result. Fact.

karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), January 26, 2005.


I have a question of my own concerning annulment. I have a good friend that married when she was 16 because she was pregnant. She became pregnant right away after the child was born, and he forced her to abort the baby, so when she became pregnant again she didn't tell him until it was too late to do anything about it. He was extremely abusive to her and made her life a living hell but she stayed with him because she thought that was what she had to do for the children. Years of physical and mental abuse plus the fact that she carried the weight of this abortion on her shoulders alone have taken it's toll. She is a recent convert to the church and has asked for a divorce from him. She would like to get an annulment so that later on down the road she might meet a nice man who will love her and the children. What I'd like to know is this.... 1) Will getting divorced from her husband affect her ability to complete her conversion? Will she still be able to be confermed and take communion this spring? and 2)Is an annulment possible under these circumstances and since she was never married in the Catholic church will that make any difference on how difficult it is to obtain? If you need any more than this let me know and I will try to explain. Thanks ....

Thanks and glory be to God !

-- suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), January 27, 2005.


Suzanne, I'll start the replies to you by saying that your friend WILL be able to convert to Catholicism despite being divorced. In fact, the Church envisions separation (and possible divorce) in a case such as the one you described. You said that there have been "Years of physical and mental abuse". Canon Law permits a spouse to separate him/herself in such cases, because we all have a right to self-defense.

It is quite possible that your friend may receive a declaration of nullity. The fact that she was not Catholic will not decrease her chance of being told that she was never validly married.

Hans, Karl said, "If your case is not decided by the Roman Rota you will get an unreliable result. Fact."

Hans, do not believe Karl. What he told you was not "fact," but his opinion. The Church herself has not told us that the Roman Rota (highest court of appeals) must decide each case for reliability. That is why Karl's words are merely his extremely fallible opinion.

Geo.

-- Geo. (McFarland@spanky.com), January 27, 2005.


I know exactly what I am talking about and the statistics bear it out. Spanky, you are the one passing wrongful information.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), January 27, 2005.

Hans,

Your ex-wife's history of instability in relationships may go back to before and during your marriage to her, if such can be established as true or reasonably true then there are definite grounds for annulment, but that is up to the Tribunal.

As for your "engagement", logically and essentially I must agree with the others above. One good reason is that your Marriage to your ex- wife is considered valid until such a time as it is declared null and void by a Tribunal. No married man can be engaged to another woman, it is that simple; I am sorry, but there is some misunderstanding in the advise you were given, I choose not to believe that you were even mistakenly given false counsel...there must be some misunderstanding.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 13, 2005.


Susan,

As long as your friend is not living in a marital situation (cohabitating, re-married, you know living in sin), then her initiation into the Catholic Church can continue.

Her previous marriage may not even need to be annulled, what are the circumstances of that marriage? What are/were their religions? Where were they married?

Other than that, my opinion is that she should petition for an annulment - her chances are as good as any.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 13, 2005.


Karl,

What do you know? Enough to be a danger to yourself and others is my guess.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 13, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ