Replies

">>Why not just change churches, since the RCC is apparently not for you?<<

Another assertion with zero evidence to back it up. If you can only fling accusations based on zip, please move along."

Thanks for the advice. I'll take it under consideration. You did not tell us that you were converting to the RCC, so I had no way of knowing that, did I?

As for the rest, you were married. Now you are remarried. If I understand correctly, for that marriage to be recognized by the RCC, you must obtain an anullment, not one from the state, but from the church.

On what grounds, if I may ask? That your ex-wife was not a Catholic, making it not a real marriage? Well, you were married. Now you're married again. That goes directly against RCC doctrine, as I understand it. Thus my statement that the RCC is not for you, since you've already married a second wife, against the teachings of your adopted church.

I can't see the case here.

That's uncalled for. I happen to be a Catholic who thinks that 95% or more of the annulments granted in this country are not, in God's eyes, likely to be worth the paper they're printed on. Nevertheless, this man has not disclosed the circumstances of his original marriage to us. Even for tradition-minded troglodytes like myself, there are - and always have been - a "few" solid, unambiguous grounds for a declaration of nullity. Perhaps this man has a legitimate claim on that basis. I don't know. But it might be worth it for him to at least embark on the initial steps and find out.

Saying the "RCC is not for you" is highly insensitive at least and likely highly dangerous, spiritually, to simply throw at him, as well. How do you know that, if the man does not qualify for an annulment, he will automatically NOT live up to Church teaching?

Stickman, I hope you aren't totally put-off by the spiritual callousness displayed here by some. By all means, at least get to the point where you can properly lay out your case. If you were originally married in a situation where fraud, force, a refusal on the part of one or agreed-to refusal on the part of both of you to have children as a condition of marriage, or one or both of you (truly) held marriage to not be a permanent bond, you very likely *do* have grounds. If you were both unbaptized, and your journey to the Catholic Faith was so violently opposed as to create a massive obstable to it, you may also have grounds under the so-called "Pauline privelege" (1 Corinthians 7:12-15, especially verse 15).

Those are the traditional grounds. Many others exist in many tribunals today, but I would caution that some places have so watered-down the legitimate criteria as to be totally meaningless and directly at odds with the clear will of Christ (eg: Matthew 5:31, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18).

The question, since you have been civilly married since 1997, is, what will you do if the grounds for nullity are not granted? Or, if they are, will your conscience allow you to truly recognize them if they are clearly specious psychobabble? Do you have small children with your current, civil spouse? Then a temporary solution to allow reception of the Sacraments (though a not terribly satisfying one, I readily admit), is, for the sake of the rearing of the children, to stay under one roof, but live as "brother and sister."

In the long term, you have much to try to prayerfully discern. I hope that, regardless of the decision of any tribunal, you make the right choice for the benefit of your soul (and your current wife's) and proceed along in your journey to the fullness of the Faith, which is the Catholic Church. You and your situation will definitely be in my prayers, and the prayers of many others here on this forum.