Question for Roman Catholics about annulment - Page 3

[spero]

Originally Posted by Smokering

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.

My parish doesn't charge for those things, either ... but we do ask for a voluntary, free will offering to cover the cost of operating the lights/heat/AC/sound system/pay the music director, snowplowing/sanding/shoveling the parking lot/walkways, ( etc. We operate on a shoestring budget as it is, and any extra services can become a burden on our budget.

We also don't charge for Mass memorials, as many parishes do - again, we just suggest a free will offering.

Annulments are another matter as someone has to actually take the time to prepare the paperwork, make copies, request documents, and see that the whole thing is properly delivered to the Diocesan tribunal. Bottom line is, that costs time and $$$. Just because it's church-related doesn't necessarily mean it should be free IMO. Many churches are flexible and will work on a sliding fee scale - and there are some like mine that only charge a very minimal fee. IMO it's just plain wrong to charge hundreds of dollars for an annulment, there's no justifying that.

[athansor]

Originally Posted by Peppermint

... 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.

See, this is where things get really confusing for me. When I was thinking about getting back to the Catholic faith many people said that all I needed to do was to get my previous marriage annulled, as if picking up an annulment was almost a given if you just paid the fees and did the paperwork.

However, the conditions for annulment are few, right? So, what happens in the situation where someone was divorced in a civil process, remarried outside the Catholic church (either in a civil ceremony or other religious ceremony), had a family...then wanted to return to Catholicism. They then applied to annul their first marriage but it was denied. It seems like they would be in quite a bad situation if that happened.

In my particular case, for other reasons, I've discerned that going back to the Catholic faith isn't the right thing for me, but I still wonder about an annulment. I do attend Catholic services with my family every once in a while, and I'm deeply nostalgic for the Church I grew up in (heavily steeped in Liberation Theology), but do feel like I've found the right place for me in my current church.

Oh...and I hope that your stomach settles down!

[Hey Mama!]

Originally Posted by kapatasana

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?

No. Dh and I were married in a protestant ceremony and later decided to convert to Catholicism. We had to be married again by the priest.

[Peppermint]

Originally Posted by athansor

It seems like they would be in quite a bad situation if that happened.

Yes, indeed they would. I know one woman, who married a previously married man (with no grounds for annulment) and then returned to her faith. She is unable to receive Communion, but I believe God will bless her willing sacrifice. (I know my dear friend spero will disagree)

Thanks for hoping my stomach settles, I'll "offer it up" for those in painful marriage/annulment situations in the Church

[katheek77]

Question:

I was never baptized. My husband and I both have prior divorces. My husband is baptized. But, the Catholic church wouldn't let me get baptized because I have a prior non-annulled marriage.

I thought, theoretically, at least, I should have been able to be baptized by the Church, no, even if I couldn't receive communion since I was married to my husband (who was baptized as a Catholic, but hasn't gone to church since he was a baby). But, I was told no. Nor would the Church baptise my daughter

Why? I'm wondering now. Isn't that kind of holding my past sins over me, even though, as I understood it, baptism should have absolved me of those sins? What am I missing?

(FTR, I felt/feel strongly about baptism, and did get baptized, along with my daughter, in another denomination last fall).

[athansor]

I'm suprised that they would not baptize your daughter, as whether or not your marriage was annuled (or able to be annuled) shouldn't reflect on her.
I'm glad you were able to find a way to have your baptisms!

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Hey Mama!

No. Dh and I were married in a protestant ceremony and later decided to convert to Catholicism. We had to be married again by the priest.

Now, based on what one pp, said, it seems to me that should not have been required.

Is it common for local parish priests to be confused about this stuff?

[Peppermint]

katheek77- I seriously had no idea that you could not be Baptized in that situation. As for Baptizing your daughter, the only reason I could see that they might not is if it were clear that neither of you intended to raise her in the faith.

I believe that generally people married in Protestant churches simply need a convalidation ceremony in the Catholic Church, that was what a friend of mine needed who was married in the SSPX church, and another who had an annulment (her husband's) granted after already being married.

[katheek77]

Originally Posted by Peppermint

katheek77- I seriously had no idea that you could not be Baptized in that situation. As for Baptizing your daughter, the only reason I could see that they might not is if it were clear that neither of you intended to raise her in the faith.

I.

I was told that if I had my prior marriage annulled, I could get baptized. They would not do RCIA or baptize me until after I had my marriage annulled. But, once I was baptized, since my DH had no intention of going through annulment/convalidation, my choices were to either never receive communion (since I was living in sin w/him, due to his prior marriage) or to not live as man and wife.

Make sense?

I don't know if that's Church law, or what the local parish/priest was deciding or what.

[Peppermint]

Hmmmm... I wish I knew for sure what the policy was in that situation, but- now that I read your explanation better, I think it might make sense that they would not Baptize you if it were clear that you intended to "live in sin". I would think for adult Baptism and confirmation certainly, you couldn't say "but I intend to keep on going with this one sin" (not that I don't understand where you are coming from, of course, but at the core, that was the case, right?)

[simple life]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I'm not Catholic, but I have a question about a situation with a RC woman in my community. There is something about it which I find slightly fishy - I don't know who the fish is though.

The woman in question was married and got a divorce. She hasn't got an annulment, but has remarried in a civil ceremony. She is not allowed to recieve communion. So far, no suprises.

She has been told that she could probably get an annulment, but apparently this would cost a lot of money, more than she can afford. Is this usual? I can see that there is administration, and a divorce costs money too. But on the other hand, if the marriage was never really valid, then wouldn't the church owe it to her to find that out? I have heard that North Americans have a lot of annulments and wonder if this is part of the issue. (In fact I know a man who sat on the local board (I don't know the proper name) that dealt with annulments and it was actually one of the things that led him to leave the Church.)

What I find really fishy though is this: Her 2nd husband, also Roman Catholic, IS allowed to receive. The rationale, apparently, is that he was never married before. But if she is still officially married to her first husband, is he not committing adultery or at least living in sin, so to speak? It seems to me the priest at the local church must be misinterpreting things. Or am I totally misunderstanding the nature of annulment?

I just saw this and have not read any responses, so don't know if this will help.

As someone who is going through just this! My husband was married before, so he is going through an annulment. He is also becoming Catholic.

Yes, annulments cost money, but they will take any kind of payment and it's not held against you if you don't pay it all, at least here, I don't know if it's different other places.

As for her husband, he should not be receiving if they are having marital relations, as that is a sin, since the Church does not recognize a civil marriage, so techincally he's having premarital sex. If he went to confession before hand, yes he could receive communion. But, if we go to our local church, they don't have an issue with Chip and I, it was one of the things that made us not want to go there, as we KNEW it was wrong and didn't like having it normalized.

Julie

[simple life]

Originally Posted by anjelika

Former RC (Current Lutheran) here...

Annulments are costly (fees starting in the thousands), and sometimes denied. It doesn't make any sense that one can take communion and the other can't though...

This must vary place to place, as my DH's is $400.

Julie

[simple life]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Yeah, that makes sense - don't worry, I didn't think it was Catholic doctrine to drown children for being illegitimate. My Catholic FIL didn't know when I asked him, so I thought I'd ask here.

Does it ever happen that two people got married, thought they had a valid Sacramental union but found out later (due to a technicality or whatever) that they didn't? In that case, would they be considered to have been living in sin, or would it not count as living in sin if it was unwitting? As in, would they have to confess? Not sure if that situation's even possible under Catholic law though.

I actually know someone who this happened too. It was found out after about 20 years! Her husband had been married before, and had been granted an annulment, or so he was told. So when this was found out, he had to go through the process again and they had to live as brother and sister, hoping that it would be granted. I do not think t hey were considered to have been living in Sin, but once they had the knowledge, they of course needed to live according to the church.

Julie

[Hey Mama!]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Now, based on what one pp, said, it seems to me that should not have been required.

Is it common for local parish priests to be confused about this stuff?

Honestly I didn't know until later that we were supposed to live as brother/sister until the Catholic marriage was done. Our priest had everyone in RCIA do a Catholic ceremony. We could choose a full church marriage or a private one with the priest. This was at an Air Force base fwiw. I'm still a newborn Catholic even though we converted about 4 years ago because I still have so much to learn.