or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Question for Roman Catholics about annulment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question for Roman Catholics about annulment - Page 2

post #21 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by athansor View Post
We spent a couple of hundred to get the process started, then a few months later were told that he didn't need the annulment becuase while he wasn't Catholic, his ex wife was and they weren't married in the church, rendering their marriage invalid.
So, we were married in the Catholic church a year later. Then, about 7 years ago, we divorced. I had drifted away from the Catholic faith for other reasons so didn't worry about an annulment at the time. .

Yet I was told that because dh and his ex were both baptised Christian (not Catholic) that their marriage did count, and mine to dh didn't. We couldn't get married in a Catholic church due to that. I still receive communion though. I think that's between me and God, not me and some man made rule (as opposed to God made rule).

I was also not the reason for the failure of his first marriage (we met years later), and neither was he (she had an affair and left him).
post #22 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Can I ask a piggyback question? DH and I were discussing annulment not today (er, not for us, that is!), and he was surprised to hear a marriage could be annulled after having a child. But I know a woman who had her first marriage annulled after having four. So does her annullment mean the children are technically illegitimate/conceived in sin? Annulment means the marriage was never really a marriage, right? Or not?
The legitimacy of a child is based on law, not religion. Annulment does not illegitimize any child.
post #23 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kapatasana View Post
As long as we're playing the "what if" game...
This is something I've always wondered about.
If someone is married in a protestant or other type of non-Catholic or Orthodox Christian church and decided to covert (or re-convert) to Catholicism is their marriage considered valid/sacramental according to the Catholic church?
If the party converted, once the marriage is convalidated (ie: blessed), then it is a sacramental marriage.
If the party reverted, same thing.
In both cases, both parties would have to live with their spouse as brother and sister until such time as the marriage became sacramental.
This is my understanding, anyway.

Quote:
What about another non-Christian religious wedding ceremony, like if a couple was married in a Jewish/Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist etc. wedding ceremony and later decided to become Catholic, would they be considered not really married? Would they have to get married again
Same as above. Once the marriage was convalidated, the marriage would be sacramental.
I am not sure on the living as brother and sister thing, though, in the case of both parties converting from another religion. Because I know those non-Catholics who marry other non-Catholics outside the Church are considered to be in a valid marriage. If this is the case, then I would assume (again, this is my understanding of the whole thing) that since both parties are already in a valid marriage, and there is nothing imped them from having the marriage convalidated (no other marriages), then it would seem like the couple could continue with relations and what-not. But I am not sure.
post #24 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post
ok another what if . . . .what if one person converted later, would they be denied the Eucharist for not being in a sacrimental marriage or do converts get exceptions?
See my previous post.
However- Catholic Answers might have the responses to the questions all y'all are askin.
post #25 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post
ok another what if . . . .what if one person converted later, would they be denied the Eucharist for not being in a sacrimental marriage or do converts get exceptions?
I wanted to get my prior marriage annulled, and convert to Catholicism. However, my current DH is a baptized Catholic (but, VERY non-praticing...as in, agnostic), and he has a prior non-annulled marriage, and absolutely no interest in an annulment.. I was told that even if I got *my* marriage annulled, because my husband had no interest in having his prior marriage annulled and ours convalidated, I would have to live the rest of my life "apart" from my husband in order to receive the Eucharist. Or I could divorce him, get it annulled, and marry a "good" catholic. :
post #26 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post
ok another what if . . . .what if one person converted later, would they be denied the Eucharist for not being in a sacrimental marriage or do converts get exceptions?
There seems to be some confusion between a valid marriage and a sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church.

A valid marriage is one that is recognized by the Church. A sacramental marriage is a valid marriage between a baptised man and a baptised woman. There are four requirements for the marriage of a Catholic person to be valid:

1) Both spouses must freely give consent;
2) Both spouses must be free to marry (meaning, not married to someone else);
3) Both spouses must have the intent to be married for life, to be faithful, and to be open to children;
4) The marriage must take place with at least two witnesses before a properly authorized Church minister. This is often referred to as being "married within the Church". It is important to note that being "married within the Church" does not always require the wedding to take place in the church building.

To get an annullment, one of these four requirements must be shown to be lacking. Often, people claim that one or both of the spouses did not have proper intent at the time of the wedding.

The Catholic Church acknowledges marriages between non-Catholics as valid, whether they are done in civil or religious ceremonies. If the marriage is between two baptised spouses it is a sacramental marriage (even if their own religion does not view marriage as a sacrament). If one or both parties is not baptised, it is a valid natural marriage.

Catholics can validly have a non-sacramental marriage. With permission of the bishop, a Catholic may marry a non-baptised person. Or in a natural marriage between non-Catholics, one spouse may convert to the Catholic Church while the other does not. In both situations there is a valid natural marriage and the Catholic spouse is free to receive the Eucharist (as long as there is no other motral sin).

I hope that helps.
post #27 of 54
thanks Lollybrat - that did help a lot.
post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kapatasana View Post
As long as we're playing the "what if" game...
This is something I've always wondered about.
If someone is married in a protestant or other type of non-Catholic or Orthodox Christian church and decided to covert (or re-convert) to Catholicism is their marriage considered valid/sacramental according to the Catholic church?
If both spouses are baptised it is already a valid sacramental marriage. If the non-converting spouse is not baptised, it is a valid natural marriage. Should the non-baptised spouse convert and be baptised the marriage will automatically become sacramental. In either case their is no need for a additional ceremony.

Catholics believe that baptism is the gateway to all other sacraments. And the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of (most) protestant churches as valid.

Convalidation is required when a Catholic attempts marriage "outside of the Church", meaning without the permission and authority of the Catholic Church, and later wants to have the Catholic Church recognize the marriage.


Quote:
What about another non-Christian religious wedding ceremony, like if a couple was married in a Jewish/Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist etc. wedding ceremony and later decided to become Catholic, would they be considered not really married? Would they have to get married again
Again, this would be a valid natural marriage. If both parties are later baptised it automaticaly becomes a sacramental marriage. If only one party converts and if baptised, it is still a valid natural marriage.

Catholics believe that in a sacramental marriage God bestows special graces onto the couple. But there is no sin in having a natural marriage as opposed to a sacramental marriage and no impediment to receiving communion.
post #29 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by anjelika View Post
Annulments are costly (fees starting in the thousands), and sometimes denied.
I have never heard of an annulment costing thousands of dollars, though costs do vary depending on who is preparing your annulment. In our parish only a small fee (less than $100) is requested.

I have also never known anyone whose annulment was denied, though I suppose it rarely happens.


Quote:
Originally Posted by athansor View Post
The whole notion of the annulment process (marriages being valid or not on a technicality, basically living in sin even if the earlier marriage was invalid until you pay your fee and do the paperwork, the status of the children of an invalid marriage, how to tell your current spouse and your kids that since the annulment was denied, you must break up your happy home and either be single or re-unite with your ex just so that your soul isn't in jeapordy, etc...) is one of the things that pushed me away from the Catholic faith.
I can't say that I blame you. According to my Church History teacher, this is one of the issues that many bishops would like to revisit - for the very reason you cite above. Issues with annulments are driving people away from the Church.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
So does her annullment mean the children are technically illegitimate/conceived in sin? Annulment means the marriage was never really a marriage, right? Or not?
Annulment means that the marriage was not Sacramental.

And IM answered the other question perfectly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmommy View Post
The legitimacy of a child is based on law, not religion. Annulment does not illegitimize any child.
We have a child conceived/born out of wedlock. He has never been considered illegitimate and was baptised in the Church long before we were married.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Peppermint View Post
The Church just is not into the whole "illegitimate" thing.
:


Quote:
Originally Posted by athansor View Post
I have a question too, what if someone goes through the process, pays the fees, and at the end, the annulment isn't granted? From what I understand, there's no guarantee, in fact, it is hard to get one. What happens to the persons current family?
Again, I don't think there is a lot of truth to "it is hard to get one".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmommy View Post
I still receive communion though. I think that's between me and God, not me and some man made rule (as opposed to God made rule).


I have a friend who hasn't rec'd Eucharist in almost 25 years, because her DH (non-practicing Catholic) flat out refuses to get his first marriage annulled.
post #30 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lollybrat View Post
If both spouses are baptised it is already a valid sacramental marriage. If the non-converting spouse is not baptised, it is a valid natural marriage. Should the non-baptised spouse convert and be baptised the marriage will automatically become sacramental. In either case their is no need for a additional ceremony.

Catholics believe that baptism is the gateway to all other sacraments. And the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of (most) protestant churches as valid.

Convalidation is required when a Catholic attempts marriage "outside of the Church", meaning without the permission and authority of the Catholic Church, and later wants to have the Catholic Church recognize the marriage.




Again, this would be a valid natural marriage. If both parties are later baptised it automaticaly becomes a sacramental marriage. If only one party converts and if baptised, it is still a valid natural marriage.

Catholics believe that in a sacramental marriage God bestows special graces onto the couple. But there is no sin in having a natural marriage as opposed to a sacramental marriage and no impediment to receiving communion.
Thank you for answering my questions
post #31 of 54
Quote:
3) Both spouses must have the intent to be married for life, to be faithful, and to be open to children;
So planning to use birth control would be grounds for an annulment? Would this have to be 'proven' with some kind of confession or evidence?

Quote:
With permission of the bishop, a Catholic may marry a non-baptised person.
Non-baptised but Catholic, non-baptised but Christian, or non-baptised but anything (agnostic, Buddhist, Moslem)?

Thanks for answering, I find this fascinating. I'm a little taken aback that annulments cost money, though.
post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lollybrat View Post
If one or both parties is not baptised, it is a valid natural marriage.
Yet even though dh and his ex were not Catholic, I was told that if one was not baptised, that it didn't count, and we would be free to marry in a Catholic church.
post #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmommy View Post
I still receive communion though. I think that's between me and God, not me and some man made rule (as opposed to God made rule).
Quote:
Originally Posted by spero View Post


I have a friend who hasn't rec'd Eucharist in almost 25 years, because her DH (non-practicing Catholic) flat out refuses to get his first marriage annulled.
Dh would have gone for an annulment if I had pushed it, but it seemed so stupid that a non Catholic marriage had to be annuled by the Catholic Church. It still makes no sense to me.
post #34 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
So planning to use birth control would be grounds for an annulment? Would this have to be 'proven' with some kind of confession or evidence?
My understanding is that you would have to prove that one of the spouses intended to never have children. This does not mean that a marriage is invalid if one or both are unable to have children (i.e. due to infertility, age, or other biological factors). It's really not about using birth control; it's about whether the couple ever intended to welcome children into their lives.


Quote:
Non-baptised but Catholic, non-baptised but Christian, or non-baptised but anything (agnostic, Buddhist, Moslem)?
The marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptised person of any faith (or no faith) requires permission (a dispensation) from the bishop.
post #35 of 54
Really? So the Catholic Church might actually be OK with a Catholic marrying an atheist/Hindu/Buddhist? I'm surprised; I thought they'd be very anti- that kind of thing. What would it take to get the dispensation from the bishop; would you have to plead special circumstances, or is it just a formality?
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
I'm a little taken aback that annulments cost money, though.

The money is for legal fees and investigation fees, do- you think the church should pay for those fees out of the weekly collection or something?
post #37 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Really? So the Catholic Church might actually be OK with a Catholic marrying an atheist/Hindu/Buddhist? I'm surprised; I thought they'd be very anti- that kind of thing. What would it take to get the dispensation from the bishop; would you have to plead special circumstances, or is it just a formality?
Although the Catholic Church does not encourage this type of marriage in principle, they are allowed with dispensation by the bishop. It is common enough that most diocese have regular forms for the paperwork involved.

In this situation, the Catholic person must promise to remain faithful to the Church and have a sincere intent to have the children baptised and raised Catholic. The non-baptised person must be informed of these promises. In the past, the non-baptised person often had to agree to the raise the children Catholic as well, but that is no longer a requirement. Now he/she simply has to be informed of the other spouse's intent.

St. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her husband." So it is the hope of the Church that the faithful life of the Catholic spouse will serve as witness to the non-believing spouse and perhaps eventually lead to his/her free conversion.
post #38 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Would this have to be 'proven' with some kind of confession or evidence?
I'm not sure that would be possible in regard to confession, since that rite is confidential and the info can't be shared.


Quote:
I'm a little taken aback that annulments cost money, though.
Like Patty said, the costs are supposed to cover administrative fees ... however some do inflate the costs so as to "make" $$$ from the process.
post #39 of 54
Quote:
I'm not sure that would be possible in regard to confession, since that rite is confidential and the info can't be shared.
Sorry, I didn't mean confession confession, just confession. As in during the annulment process someone would ask the not-open-to-children spouse if she/he had been secretly planning to use birth control, rather than taking the other spouse's word for it. It just strikes me as tricky, because what if the not-open-to-children spouse didn't want an annulment? How 'proven' does it have to be; is it similar to legal cases? Are there lawyers? Or am I way overthinking this?

Quote:
The money is for legal fees and investigation fees, do- you think the church should pay for those fees out of the weekly collection or something?
I dunno; maybe. I see why it's done, I just have a bit of a Thing about churches/pastors charging for religious services. My father's a pastor and doesn't charge for anything - weddings, funerals, baptisms. But yes, it's a different system, paperwork and so on, I know.

Lollybrat: Thanks for the info. My Catholic SIL's Catholic friend is marrying a semi-observant Jewish guy, and I was faintly surprised no-one seemed to think it was an issue, Catholicism-wise. That explains it.
post #40 of 54
Sorry, I think my previous post read as snarky (I am currently hosting a tiny little person who is making me nauseous 24/7). I just mean that, I don't think it would be fair to those who donate to the Church, to use their money to help with annulments. I mean, it's not a sacrament, yk? It's not like charging for a baptism or wedding (which I have never heard of around here, though, it is considered polite to make a donation). I just find this so different than if churches were charging for Sacraments. I would not be happy to find out that money I thought was going to support the church/ the needy was actually going to lawyer fees for annulments. I mean, if I had a friend who needed help with lawyer fees for an annulment, I would surely help, but- these days many people see annulments as "Catholic divorces" and just want out of their commitment for reasons that don't rise to what annulments are supposed to be for.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Question for Roman Catholics about annulment