[cozyk]

I ask a question in an earlier post about why the Catholic Church does not recognize a second marriage unless it annuls the first one. Chuck and Rick appear to be knowledgeable
About this subject. Please address my confusion.

What are they researching?

Why does it take so long? Hence the money you should donate for their time and service.

What is this paper to be about? My friend said she had been working on hers for awhile, wasn't satisfied with it, and did not have the money she would need to pay. I THINK I heard her say $5000.00. Shouldn't she have done this BEFORE her 2nd marriage?

Other than her 2nd marriage not being recognized, is she also banned from taking part in communion? What about her husband and son?

When and why did this practice begin?

[Fr_Chuck]

No there is no Money required, but they will want to know ( just some things)
1. are both parties baptised
2. is the other party willing to agree
3. get written statements from all parties ( often the one party will not even write back)

But no there is no money required to be paid, there are some "independent Bishops" that are not part of Rome but have valid orders that do annulments for money ( sad thing and I can not stand those that do that)

But yes, it should have been done prior to the first, but if not, they can ask for it afterward and then have the new marriage blessed.

But at this point she is considered living in adultry ( she is still considered married) So her and her new husband can not take communion.

Her son would be free to take of the sacrements of baptism, confirmation, and communion.

I am sure there was an official rule set in place, but it has been the practice since the early church, divorce was not reconised.

[cozyk]

No there is no Money required, but they will want to know ( just some things)
1. are both parties baptised Does this make a difference? What if one is, the other not?or none is bad

2. is the other party willing to agree They BOTH have to address the church for the annulment? If only one does this, the annulment is not granted?

3. get written statements from all parties ( often the one party will not even write back)Are you saying that both parties have to write a paper and often times one of the parties does not write THEIR paper. And if that one person does not hand in their paper, then the whole thing is called off?

no there is no money required to be paid, there are some "independent Bishops" that are not part of Rome but have valid orders that do annulments for money ( sad thing and I can not stand those that do that) Yeah, those guys sound like jerks.


But yes, it should have been done prior to the first, (you mean before the second?) but if not, they can ask for it afterward and then have the new marriage blessed.

But at this point she is considered living in adultry ( she is still considered married)
(to husband number one?) So her and her new husband can not take communion.

Her son would be free to take of the sacrements of baptism, confirmation, and communion.

I am sure there was an official rule set in place, but it has been the practice since the early church, divorce was not reconised.

Pardon me, I mean no disrespect, but it sounds so very "lofty" for certain members of a church to deem other members not fit for communion. Only God knows your heart.
My friend was married to her high school sweetheart at age 18. They were married for a very short time. She calls that "marriage" a joke. They were young, stupid, and didn't really have a clue what they were doing. By the time her second marriage rolled around, she had the maturity to know what she was doing when she said her vows. This union was a "true uniting" of people where as the first one was hollow and shallow. God knows this and for the church to play God with the realities of their commitment is wrong. Marriage is just a word. Real marriage is in the hearts of the two people involved and in the eyes of God. You can get a license, go through the steps, be pronounced man and wife and be no more married than the man on the moon. Or you can go before God, proclaim your love, commitment, and dedication to each other and be more married in God's eyes, and never sign a legal paper. The church seems to be more concerned with the legal status than the TRUE definition of marriage.

[Akoue]

Pardon me, I mean no disrespect, but it sounds so very "lofty" for certain members of a church to deem other members not fit for communion.

I don't see how its sounding "lofty" to your ears is much of an objection. Do you have a principled objection, or do you just dislike the sound of it?

[Fr_Chuck]

They can go to another denomination if they don't like it.
For example, unlike others I am part of an Independent Catholic group, they like the Old Catholic groups would allow them to take communion, although we also would want them to an annullment, but the process is alitle easier.

[cozyk]

I don't see how its sounding "lofty" to your ears is much of an objection. Do you have a principled objection, or do you just dislike the sound of it?

All of the above. It's audacious to take the authority to "pardon" a couple of their mistake, rule it null and void, and then give them the permission to go forward with their lives.
It doesn't matter if it is free or cost a fortune, the church does not have the authority to make a judgment on a couple when only they and God knew the validity of their union. Marriage is a legal word, not a religious one. The spirit of a marriage is what makes it a REAL marriage or not.

I still don't have a sound answer for my questions.

[Fr_Chuck]

That thus is the issue of the question, the difference is the view of marriage first, yes the US has make it a legal issue, but the church sees marriage as a religious one first and foremost.

While the state has and does marry people, they do see this. But to the church, it is not a marriage under God, it is merely a civil marriage. Only one by the church, is valid by the church.

And to you it is the spirit, but to the Church is it the sacarement of the rules of marriage.

But again other groups, many penticostals, some baptist all do not see divorce as a option often.
While they have no set rules, they have opinions on it.

So to you it is a legal state issue, to the church, we care less about what the state says, to the church it is really only and always a church issue.

[Akoue]

Fr_Chuck is exactly right. The Church regards marriage as a sacrament, not (as civil law does) as a contract. If two people don't believe that marriage is a sacrament, and so don't think the Church has any business getting involved, then they shouldn't be married in the Church.

As for your claim about the Church's authority, I confess I find that undermotivated. Why wouldn't the Church have authority in such matters?

The Church cannot dissolve a valid marriage. An investigation is undertaken to determine whether the marriage was valid in the first place. If it wasn't it can be annulled (the state does the same thing, by the way). This investigation ought to be thorough, and since the state of mind of the parties at the time of marriage is relevant to the validity of the marriage, the Church asks them to answer lots of questions. This strikes me as not at all unreasonable. Marriage is a sacrament. The unity forged thereby is the work of God's grace, and so humans cannot dissolve that union. What humans can do is try to determine whether that union was forged in the first place. If it wasn't, and that fact can be discerned, then the marriage can be annulled. If it was, the Church cannot annul it.

[arcura]

I agree very much with Akoue and Fr Chuck.
The Church is guided by what is in the bible on marriage and what Jesus said about it.
Keep in mind that The Church believes what Jesus said about it having authority and that it is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[RickJ]

Caveat: I've not read the previous answers... I'm just responding to the initial post.

In short (according to the historical Christian faith): A true [aka "valid"] marriage is until the death of one of the two. Neither party can decide that s/he would like it "dissolved" or otherwise ended.

... so the "investigation" is to determine whether the marriage was valid or not.

[cozyk]

Caveat: I"ve not read the previous answers...I'm just responding to the initial post.

In short (according to the historical Christian faith): A true [aka "valid"] marriage is until the death of one of the two. Neither party can decide that s/he would like it "dissolved" or otherwise ended.

...so the "investigation" is to determine whether the marriage was valid or not.

I disagree. A "true" marriage is when two hearts come together. A person could marry someone for all the wrong reasons, later mature, and see the error of their ways. Get a divorce, and do it right the next time. By the definition given by the Catholic church, the two dummies involved in the first marriage would be stuck. How do you or the church see that as the right thing to do. It doesn't allow for the human condition of "growing up."

Are these two people supposed to stick together when they should not have been married in the first place? I think God would highly disapprove of living a lie. Married in name only.

[arcura]

RickJ
That is a good explanation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[cozyk]

RickJ
That is a good explanation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, I get all excited when I see in my inbox that there are new posts from askme.
My balloon is popped so often when I get there, it is just you agreeing with someone.
I'm like, "darn! It's just Fred agreeing again!:D:D:D

[arcura]

cozyk,
So?
Am I only to post when I disagree?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[cozyk]

Whether you agree or disagree is not the point. The point is that when I see an alert in my inbox, that I am looking forward to reading a new perspective or see an idea expressed that could add more food for thought. Some more meat and potatoes.

But when I get to the thread and I just see yet another agree, or a pat on the back to another poster with nothing more to add, it's like a bowl of clear broth. Does that make sense ? Do you get what I am saying?

[arcura]

cozyk,
Yes I now understand what you are saying.
Often though there are other posts new to you other than mine.
Mine may not be the only new one.
I feel that it is important to let a person know that someone agrees with them.
I know that I appreciate it when someone agrees with me.
I think that you probably do so also.
When others agree with me it makes me feel that I have contributed something of value.
I think that others who post here should have the same respect of knowing that others agree with them on a particular post.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Athos]

I disagree. A "true" marriage is when two hearts come together. A person could marry someone for all the wrong reasons, later mature, and see the error of their ways. Get a divorce, and do it right the next time. By the definition given by the Catholic church, the two dummies involved in the first marriage would be stuck. How do you or the church see that as the right thing to do. It doesn't allow for the human condition of "growing up."

Are these two people supposed to stick together when they should not have been married in the first place? I think God would highly disapprove of living a lie. Married in name only.

You make an excellent point, but many Catholics will disagree. To Catholics, marriage is a sacrament instituted by Christ which cannot be dissolved (according to one Gospel - another allows it for adultery). To most non-Catholics, marriage is a civil ceremony which can be dissolved. "Annulment" is simply a way of getting around the thorny problem of divorce.

In the past, the Catholic Church allowed divorce for reasons of state and for substantial payments in kind or in cash. Today, it is much easier to get an annulment but the Church still insists on calling it an annulment. There was a time (within our lifetimes) that annulment required that the marriage had never been "consummated"; i.e. no sexual intercourse had taken place. But that has changed. Many reasons for annulment are now accepted.

It is good to make marriage difficult to dissolve. As we all know, marriage is never an easy path. But it is often worse to insist on a marriage continuing when the marriage environment is destructive to the children and to the married couple.

[cozyk]

You make an excellent point, but many Catholics will disagree. To Catholics, marriage is a sacrament instituted by Christ which cannot be dissolved (according to one Gospel - another allows it for adultery). To most non-Catholics, marriage is a civil ceremony which can be dissolved. "Annulment" is simply a way of getting around the thorny problem of divorce.

In the past, the Catholic Church allowed divorce for reasons of state and for substantial payments in kind or in cash. Today, it is much easier to get an annulment but the Church still insists on calling it an annulment. There was a time (within our lifetimes) that annulment required that the marriage had never been "consummated"; i.e., no sexual intercourse had taken place. But that has changed. Many reasons for annulment are now accepted.

It is good to make marriage difficult to dissolve. As we all know, marriage is never an easy path. But it is often worse to insist on a marriage continuing when the marriage environment is destructive to the children and to the married couple.

I agree that getting out of a marriage should be difficult. I also believe that getting into a marriage should be difficult. Not in the sense of planning a big extravaganza, but that classes should be required and some hard questions asked and answered.

The fact that the church is making consesions such as dropping the "no sex" requirement tells me that I was right on target. I feel like churches in general, not just catholics, are re-evaluating their stance all the time. Some of their rules have proven to be unrealistic and if they resist change, the pews will be empty.

[arcura]

Athos ans cozyK,
If a couple is getting married in the Catholic Church they must go through a class of several hours of instruction during which they have an opportunity to discover that maybe their union should not take place.
There is a big difference between true love and infatuation. A couple has the opportunity to discover what their attraction really is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Athos]

I agree that getting out of a marriage should be difficult. I also believe that getting into a marriage should be difficult. Not in the sense of planning a big extravaganza, but that classes should be required and some hard questions asked and answered.

The fact that the church is making consesions such as dropping the "no sex" requirement tells me that I was right on target. I feel like churches in general, not just catholics, are re-evaluating their stance all the time. Some of their rules have proven to be unrealistic and if they resist change, the pews will be empty.

The Catholic Church has Pre-Cana Conferences that all Catholics wishing to be married in the Church must attend. "Cana" comes from the Gospel story where Jesus attended a wedding and miraculously provided wine after it had run out.

And, yes, you are correct. The "rules" have a way of changing reflecting the current mores.