A Divorced Father of Two Becomes Seattle’s Newest Priest

The Deacon's Bench ^ | June 30, 2013 | Deacon Greg Kandra

[NYer]

Ping!

[iowamark]

Notable points are that he is not just divorced, but has a decree of nullity; and that his children are adults.

[verga]

When I was in the Seminary one of my closest friends there had 2 children and 3-4 grandkids. He had entered the seminary at age 20 but took some time off and ended up married. His wife passed away and it was his children that encouraged him to look into the seminary again.

[utahagen]

Your points are good ones, yet this story doesn’t make me happy. An annulment means the sacrament was invalid, but it doesn’t mean there wasn’t some type of marriage in the first place. I think it’s unfortunate that the details of this man’s life before the priesthood had to be made public. I don’t doubt the goodness or sincerity of this new priest, but I think it sets a bad example for a priest to be someone who was married, had two children — who, I’ll concede are now adults — and got a civil divorce and an annulment before becoming a priest. People in pews whose marriages are in crisis could reasonably look at this priest and think, “There were ground for him to get an annulment and start over. Why not for me, too?”

[utahagen]

I think a priest who is a widower sets a very different example for married people in the pews than does a priest who is divorced (see my other post).

[dansangel]

*Ping* to myself for later contemplation.....

[wastedyears]

Not saying that other priests don’t know what they’re talking about, but here’s a guy with a lot of real-world experience with dating, and I think that would help innumerable amounts of young adults experiencing problems with dating, whether it’s with their current boy/girlfriend, or just someone they’re interested in, but aren’t sure how to go about pursuing that person. He could also help very many married couples with his experience.

[xrmusn]

I think a priest who is a widower sets a very different example for married people in the pews than does a priest who is divorced (see my other post).
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I agree with you in regards to if one had his ‘druthers’. However, my own personal take on it is once married, you forfeit your chances of becoming a Priest.

I had broken away from the Church for many years and went back and didn’t ‘like’ the new Mass, Lay People distributing Communion, Enlish rather than Latin etc etc.
So I guess I have committed my soul to Purgatory - I should be so lucky BUT the heat doesn’t bother me all that much.
(Divorce, marrying a non Catholic, not partaking Sacraments for long while)... Just like your ‘mainstream C Politician, all the rules don’t apply to them.) I am waiting (hoping) for the Church Hierarchy to tell Pelosi and Biden (for starters) to take a hike and quit receiving Communion, which must just be for photo ops anyhow.

Just my take on it but we looked at things differently when I was an altar boy (1953 or so).

I was married 43 years and got a divorce, that was official in ‘07 and I haven’t really dated or been looking since but enough of the ladies I have talked to didn’t (don’t) think that the 43 years was considered sticking to a commitment - we were ‘over’ long before that but ‘stuck it out’ till both daughters were established with their own families.

[Jewbacca]

Is an annulement like a hafqa’at kiddushin?

(Essentially a forced get because there was something not valid in the marriage.)

Or do you know what that is?

[NYer]

Is an annulement like a hafqa’at kiddushin? (Essentially a forced get because there was something not valid in the marriage.)

Yes. Annulments are granted, for example, when, if after marriage, one of the pair changes its mind about having children ... or ... is physically abusive towards the other. These are just a few examples.

[veritas2002]

Divorce is a civil matter.

An annulment is an ecclesial matter. It signifies that the elements necessary for a truly sacramental marriage did not exist. It asserts that no sacramental marriage occurred. Hence, he was not married in the way the Church looks upon marriage.

[Jewbacca]

Thank you. Learn something every day on FR.

[utahagen]

The examples you cite are not grounds for annulment. An annulment means the marriage was invalid at the outset, not that something went wrong after the wedding. If a person tesitifes in an annulment proceeding that he or she NEVER intended to have children (and perhaps lied about it before the wedding), this would be grounds for an annulment. However, if someone said, “I fully intended to have children, but changed my mind a year after the wedding”, that would not by a valid ground for an annulment. (Of course, most such people would simply lie and claim to never have wanted children.)

Also, abuse is not grounds for an annulment; it’s merely justification for separating from the abusive spouse. Now, abuse may be cited as evidence that the abuser lacked the psychological maturity to marry in the first place, but abuse alone would not be ground for annulment.

An annulment means that something at the outset of the marriage made the marriage invalid. For example, a man who knew he was homosexual when he dated and married a woman would not be someone who could be validly married. However, a heterosexual man who married his wife with the intention of being faithful to her, but after the wedding, wanted to have an open marriage, should not be granted an annulment.

OF course, AS I write above, some people fudge and lie when trying to get an annulment, but objectively, a change of heart about having kids or abuse themselves would not be grounds for annulment.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Hence, he was not married in the way the Church looks upon marriage.

With two adult children. You can see why Protestants sometimes look at us and find us Monty Python-esque.

[Vermont Lt]

He is no longer married, at least in the eyes of the church. Without knowing the specifics of the annulment it is not ours to judge. This does not seem like a “Kennedy Annulment” to me.

I think its guys like this who make the best priests. They know life and they know God.

If he is truly repentant of any sins he committed prior to taking his vows...he is fine with me.

[FourtySeven]

I don’t know if this will help but: An annulment doesn’t say the sacrament was “invalid” (or in any way defective) it says it never occured in the first place. The marriage never occured in the eyes of God.

This is how it’s different than a “simple” divorce. A divorce is man saying (or trying to say but failing miserably), “This marriage no longer exists. It’s terminated.”

No one has the power to do that. “What God has joined no man can separate”. This is always true.

So the good Father here is in no way lessening the sacramental vow and bond. It never existed in the first place for him, or his wife.

[RginTN]

Does this make the children bastards in the church which annulled the parents marriage?

[FourtySeven]

I don’t know the answer to that question, as a matter of fact, to be honest.

However if one accepts the definition of “bastard child” as one concieved as a result of willful fornication I would say “no”, as, at the time, (I think it’s safe to assume) the two believed they were married so they did not “willfully” commit fornication.

This is my opinion of the situation.

[pbear8]

Please find a Latin Mass nearby and worship Our Lord on Sundays and Holy Days. Purgatory is a very painful and lonely place according to those who have been given a look. Even if you can find a less offensive NO, go. It is far better than the alternative.