My ex-wife and I were married in a Pentecostal Church, we are both Roman Catholic, or should I say Roaming Catholics. I wish to return to the Church and wonder if there were any grounds to consider a Decree of Nullity for our marriage. We were both young and very influenced by the 'cult' like nature of the Church we were involved in and felt compelled to marry so as not to sin against God, amongst other things! There is no chance of reconciliation in the marriage but I would like to reconcile with the Church and perhaps one day remarry with the blessing of the Church. Thank you.

-- Graeme Roberts (glower@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002

Answers

Hello, Graeme.
Cheers! And welcome back to the Church. You are making the best move of your life. (And I speak from experience.)
There's no reason to delay. Please visit the pastor of your nearest Catholic parish as soon as you can.

You have not mentioned a very important fact in your case. Did either or both of you always remain Catholic, even during your excursion into pentecostalism? Or did you both make a formal departure from the Church, either declaring that you were not Catholic to each other or to others, or formally becoming members of a non-Catholic denomination?

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002.

By saying that it was "cult like" and that you were "very influenced" and "compelled" to get married, are you saying that you were somehow brainwashed into getting married?

What would the Catholic Church do if a priest were made aware of a two single parishioners living together in sin? Would an ultimatum be issued? Would they be instructed to either separate and live chaste until marriage or get married (only after a period of separation)? What influence would the Catholic Church use if the two disobeyed and continued living in sin? Would they be denied sacraments?

My point is that apart from what other "cult like" things you may or may not have experienced in that pentecostal church, I can't equate them not allowing you to continue living in sin as "cult like" but rather very much solid scriptural teaching that ALL churches adhere to.

My guess is that they didn't MAKE you get married. You had two other choices: stop living in sin or leave the church. Your decision to marry and make your vows before God was as a mature adult who knowingly made that decision, not as a victim of a cult who was brainwashed and therefore not responsible for your actions.

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002.

> "What would the Catholic Church do if a priest were made aware of a two single parishioners living together in sin?"

Well, if I was a priest, I would tell them to go to confession and stop sinning. I would not tell them to get married, as that is soemthing they have to decide for themselves. The Church in my area, has people wait 6 months, and they have to take a marriage preparation course in that time. They did this because they were fed up with people's marriages failing so much in this day and age.

> "Would an ultimatum be issued?"

Well not sure what ultimatum they could give here, as it would have to be backed up with a threat of somekind, and nothing really they can threaten them with, except maybe not being able to receive the Eurcharist during mass. Sinnners are always welcome in the Church and of course to confession, as that is what the Church is there for.

> "Would they be instructed to either separate and live chaste until marriage or get married (only after a period of separation)?"

If they are living togeather in sin, yes they should be told to seperate for good, or seperate and live chaste lives till marriage if they decide that.

> "What influence would the Catholic Church use if the two disobeyed and continued living in sin? Would they be denied sacraments?"

To be denied the sacrements means to also be denied the sacrament of reconcilation (confession), and that would not be done in this case. They could be denied the Eurcharist during Mass if the Priest is aware that they are in mortal sin. To be denied all the sacraments including reconcilation would involve a serious matter like helping someone to get an abortion for example. If such an act is done, then they become excommunicated from that faith, and cannot receive the sacraments.

> "By saying that it was "cult like" and that you were "very influenced" and "compelled" to get married, are you saying that you were somehow brainwashed into getting married?"

That may not matter in such a case, as the Church does not recognize marriages by a lot of Protestant denominations because they do not have valid priests. Since many protestant denominations have no problems with divorce, and remarriage, you should not be concerned about that. It's the Catholic Church who says divorce and remarriage is not allowed. So then the issue of previous marriages hinges on the whether they were valid or not in the eyes of God.

Anyway, I think there is a lot of abuse in the annulment process in the Church today, as people are getting annulments, by saying they did not fully understand what they were getting into when they got married, which the Church then considers not a valid marriage. If the Church is giving out so many annulments, then you have to wonder how many of the marriages where the couple stays togeather is valid or not? I guess a lot of people are living in sin, even though they were married in the Church?

I think it is a bit of joke, when people claim they did not understand what they were getting into, as it's like pleading temporary insanity, but I am OK now. They should provide proof that they have a history of mental illness or something to that effect to get such an annulment.

Annulment's today in many cases is equalivalent to Catholic divorce. If I dated a girl, who told me she got an annulment for not understanding what she was getting into, then I would drop her like a hot potato, because you have to wonder if she would understand what she was getting into the second time. I was insane then, but I am not now! Yeah right! Call me cynical!

Please correct me if I said anything wrong above, as I am not expert in such matters.

Ave Maria Gracia Plena!

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 18, 2002.

Sorry! "Eurcharist" should be spelled "Eucharist". I misspell that everytime!

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 18, 2002.

Gordon,

Thanks for responding. Just to respond to your questions and comments . . .

You said, "I would not tell them to get married, as that is soemthing they have to decide for themselves."

Agreed. But I would say one of your choices for resolving this situation is marriage AFTER a period (six months works for me too) of separation and chastity.

You said, "Well not sure what ultimatum they could give here, as it would have to be backed up with a threat of somekind . . ."

The threat I was referring to in denial of sacraments, removal from participating in Church leadership and ministry roles, etc. Though I did not necessarily mean all sacraments - I wasn't thinking excommunication here, though that is a valid tool for dealing with certain levels of sin.

You said, "Since many protestant denominations have no problems with divorce, and remarriage, you should not be concerned about that."

That's not entirely accurate. Officially, most Protestant denominations only approve of divorce and remarriage if the reason for the divorce was for marital infidelity, spouse being prevented from practicing their faith by an unbelieving spouse, and severe abuse situations. The first two reasons are explicitly mentioned in the New Testament as a valid reason to divorce, the last is pretty much universally agreed to be God's heart.

My denomination is so stringent in its treatment of divorce that if a minister gets divorced, even for a "valid" reason, he/she has their ministry ordination revoked.

Now, all that being said, I'm the first to admit that many Protestants are becoming as accepting of divorce (for more liberal reasons than noted) as Catholics are regarding anullments. And I don't agree with either. Thanks for your honest discussion regarding anullments Gordon.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002.

Testing

-- (@ .), January 19, 2002.

I didnt mean to stir up such a hornests nest. Firstly I would like to thank John for his constructive comments and in reply, we both remained Catholics, we never formally renounced our faith to each other or anyone else, nor did we formally become a member of the Assemblies of God other than via our participation and marriage. We were however, active particpants in the Church's ministry to the poor, I guess you could term it lay ministry but that did not involve any formal ceremony or renunciation of any previous faith.Thank you so much for your welcome back into the Church, it does mean alot.

-----------------------------

In responding to dlbowerman@yahoo.com (David?)I took some time to deliberate on the nature of the response and chose to believe that as you are unaware of my past or circumstances, you can not understand the 'cult like' influence of certain Protestant Pentecostal Churches. As far as your assumption that we were living in sin, I could have laughed hysterically. We were not even allowed to date, unless there were Church home pastors also present with us. By saying we were complelled to marry, well I wouldnt use that term, everyone has a choice but strictness of the dating system within this Church was so paramount, I chose someone whom I thought I could be compatible with and chose to marry her in order to get to know her, as that was the only permissible way of getting to know anyone on a deeper level in the 'Church' and I dont mean sexually! You were not permitted to even spend time alone with someone. The official belief was that God will bless any marriage just as he did the arranged marriages in the Old Testament, and that our marraige would work simply because we were married in the Church of God, ie. The Pentecostal Church, with its support of home church ministry to guide us.

Well not only did we learn that the basis of our marriage was seriously flawed, the support couples in the ministry, to whom we were to turn for marriage counselling when things inevitibly went wrong, were also having equally and worse problems, especially adultery! My wife chose to leave the Church first and found a new life without Christaninty, I struggled for another year with the lies and deceptions of a ministry that was more concerned with material wealth than Gods work.

Now I find I want to come home to my own faith, if you choose to judge me for my mistakes, well so be it, I am not going to argue with you. I believe that the Church is more forgiving and accepting of its lost sheep than you are and place my hope in others like John who responded above.

--------------------------

Thank you for the others who repsonded, and as far as the Decree of Nullity been the Catholic divorce, I disagree wholeheartedly, as the cynics might expect. Yet I believe that some of us do make unintentional and fatal errors at the outset of a marriage that make that marriage almost doomed to failure. Had my wife and myself been grounded in the true faith, we may or may not have married but we would definately have had the chance to understand each other better before we felt 'compelled' to make such a decision and had a more solid understanding of the sacred vow we were about to embark upon.

Gordon your comments were mostly objective, thank you. I just hope the girl who makes mistakes like we all have done and constantly still do, that you drop like a 'hot potato', isnt the one that would have made you happy until 'death do you part'.

-- Graeme Roberts (glower@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.

Dear Graeme,

My, what an experience. No, I had no idea of your past. I've attended Assembly of God churches for many years and have only heard of such things in the old shepherding/discipleship movement from the late 70's and early 80's. I thought that kind of control and manipulation was long gone. No wonder you thought it cult-like, I don't blame you. I can assure you that the vast majority of Pentecostal denominations out there do not practice anything like that, but it sounds like you well on your way to a spiritually healthy restoration. I'm happy for you especially that you are free from such bondage.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 20, 2002.

David B,

Just out of curiousty, How old is the Pentecostal denominations ? I think I read some where that they are about 100 years old, but I am not sure.

Thanks, David.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), January 20, 2002.

David B, I forgot to say, That I hope everything is going well with your family, and I hope your wife is doing well with thearapy.

God Bless You.

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), January 20, 2002.

> "Gordon your comments were mostly objective, thank you. I just hope the girl who makes mistakes like we all have done and constantly still do, that you drop like a 'hot potato', isnt the one that would have made you happy until 'death do you part'."

Well a Decree of Nullity is not a guarantee from God himself, but something from God's Church saying that the marriage was not valid. The people making this decision can be wrong, and the Church has no authority to unjoin what God has joined togeather.

A lot of people who are seeking a Decree of Nullity, are doing so, while currently being involved with someone. In other words, they are in love, and they would like nothing better than to get this Decree, so they can marry in the Church. If someone is asking these people, if they understood what they were getting into with their first marriage, then I can see the temptation would be very great, to say they did not.

This does not even have to be a deception on their part to think this way, as they very well could be having a desire that is so strong, in that they want to marry or re-marry in the Church, that it is clouding their judgement.

What I am doing, is that I am playing it safe, in that I do not want to marry a woman, who is still married in the eyes of God. For me to marry such a person, would mean that I would be living in sin with them. God could even very well say to me on judgement day, how could you have accepted this Decree of Nullity, when you had doubts to it's validity, which is what I would have in these circumstances.

Note my life long happiness with a woman, is not more important than doing God's Holy Will, and I have no problems sacrificing such happiness, for the happiness in the after-life to come.

We must give all Glory to God! Our lives are meaningless next to that incredible glory! Anyway, I believe that doing God's Holy Will IS happiness itself.

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 21, 2002.

David S.,

Thanks so much for asking about my family. They're doing well. My son's injuries were cleared up after about a month, so he has only a few scars as a reminder, plus the memories which we're praying constantly that God will heal as well. My wife is still in therapy 3 times a week to regain functionality of her hand with the severed tendon and her walking is about 80% normal now. She's doing more and more each day and life is starting to return to normal here - it's been an exhausting few months.

The seeds of the Pentecostal movement were birthed around 1901 when a minister by the name of Parham had begun to pray about the scriptures regarding the way the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church on the day of Pentecost resulting in the gifts of the Spirit. He assumed that since God is the same then and now that such a functioning of those gifts should be available for the Church today as well. So he began fasting and praying and eventually had an experience that we call the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which resulted in his speaking in tongues. This first seed later birthed a movement in Azuza Street California around 1906 called the Azuza Street revival led by an African-American minister named William Seymour. People from all over the world visited that home every day for years because people were being baptized in the Spirit as Seymour preached and prayed.

The people who had been so baptized were often forced out of their churches who rejected the experience. In order to survive and continue what God had started, they formed their own churches. Those small churches later got together in 1914 to start the first Pentecostal denomination the Assemblies of God (though they refer to it as a voluntary fellowship rather than a denomination).

That's a high-level summary of how it started.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 21, 2002.

I completely disagree with you about the decree of nullity matter, Gordon. You couldn't be more wrong.

Nevertheless, I respect your right to your opinion. You are a very scrupulous man, where it concerns *whom you will marry* --somehow too grave.If a decree is obtained from Holy Mother church throught the proper authority-- even at the bottom rungs of the hierarchy; that decree is VALID under Canon Law.

I realize what base your opinion on: You could be marrying ''somebody else's wife'' and not know it!!!

The Church is able to absolve you of the fault, even should it happen. You are given by God the solemn obligation of abiding by her decisisons, aren't you? Then, ipso facto--you didn't commit sin. A sin must be an act committed with full knowledge of its evil. ''Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth is also loosed in heaven,'' si the authority Christ vested in His Church. You have a decree, it's abslutely OK for you to remarry in the Catholic Church. Just MY opinion. God be with you always, GV /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 21, 2002.

Eugene, you may have a point, but then that sounds like the Decree of Nullity is some kind of divorce?

> "A sin must be an act committed with full knowledge of its evil."

Mortal sins that is. Venial sins are still sins, and can be serious sins that can be done in complete ignorance. Venial sins have an effect on you in that they can also lead to mortal sins. Venial sins may very well involve years of suffering in purgatory.

> "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth is also loosed in heaven,"

The Church has no authority to change God's sacred laws. That passage from the Bible refers to things like asking the faithful to not eat meat on fridays for example. It certainly does not give the Church the right to change God's Holy precepts.

Can you provide evidence to me that the Decree of Nullity is an infallible decision, and binding in the eyes of God?

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 21, 2002.

Oh, how I wish there were 72 hours in a day, so that I could get caught up here at the forum! I have been away for more than a day, and I was ultra-busy for a few days before that. So much has transpired! I need to find out whether I am capable of writing short responses. Maybe not on this thread, though.

Hello, Graeme.
. I regret not having been here when you got back to me with your reply. You had asked: "I wish to return to the Church and wonder if there were any grounds to consider a Decree of Nullity for our marriage."

Well, based on the answer you gave ["Yes"] to my question about whether either or both of you remained Catholic, I can answer your question with a definite "Yes" of my own. When a Catholic couple wishes to get married, they must follow certain marriage-related rules found in the Code of Canon Law. Two of these state that the ceremony must be in a Catholic church or chapel, and that the vows must be witnessed by a Catholic priest or deacon. There are other rules besides these. When one of the parties is non-Catholic, the Catholic must obtain the bishop's permission to depart from marriage rules (e.g., for the wedding to be in a Protestant church or a Jewish synagogue).

Graeme, due to the fact that you did not follow the rules in any regard, your wedding did not make you and your friend "two in one flesh" in God's eyes, and it was considered invalid by his Church. Of all the kinds of cases that come before a marriage tribunal, this kind (lack of canonical form) is usually the simplest and fastest handled (possibly six months). I recommend that you approach your new Catholic pastor about this at your earliest convenience. Be aware, though, that the Church will make an earnest attempt to contact your "ex-wife" to obtain her written testimony, if she should care to give it.

Hello, Gordon and David B.
As with Graeme, I wish that I could have responded to you sooner. I remember reading the discussion you had back on the 18th. Sitting here on my keyboard is a note to remind me to get back to this thread to respond to both of you. Well, I can't do a complete job of it now, so I will try to come back again later. But I just want to tell you, Gordon, that I must support most (though not 100%) of what Graeme and Eugene have told you -- in those areas in which they disagreed with you.

If I had to pick the single most important thing I wanted to say, Gordon, it would be to beg you not to refer to Decrees of Nullity as "Catholic divorces." That is truly an inaccurate and harmful term to use. Before you made my hair stand on end by using it on the 18th (and then again on the 21st), the only people I had ever heard using it were anti-Catholics who were ridiculing our Church. The Church has always had a process for Decrees of Nullity, though it has been used more than ever before in the last half-century. The Code of Canon Law has many detailed precepts related to this subject, and members of marriage tribunals take difficult graduate-level courses in pontifical universities to prepare themselves for this work.

I would bet that almost all judges throughout the world are trying to do their very best to uphold the law and the sanctity of marriage. Some would be terribly hurt, others insulted, to hear that their labors were being called "Catholic divorce." They realize that they are fallible and may occasionally make mistakes -- or worse, be deceived by a spouse or couple -- but they try hard to serve God and their bishop's flock. There exists an appeals process (sometimes automatic, and more than one level of appeal, if necessary) to help cut decrease the number of errors.

It is impossible to call this process "divorce," because the tribunal pay as little attention as possible to events that occur after the wedding day. Their focus is on the status of things at the moment the vows are taken -- for example, whether there is true freedom to give consent, whether the parties understand their obligations, whether they are open to children, whether they are suffering from debilities (e.g., mental illness, sexual disorders, extreme psychological immaturity, etc.) that would render them unable to give genuine consent.

Can you see how terribly different this is from civil divorce, in which the entire focus is usually on the so-called breakdown of a marriage caused by events that transpire after the wedding day? In a divorce, people say that they (or the state) brought an end to something that existed -- a marriage. But in a nullity process, the bishop's representatives find that a couple really did, or really did not, enter into a valid marriage on "day one." A tribunal cannot issue a decree when one of the parties has an "affair" years after the wedding day, but a civil divorce might result from that affair. See the difference?

Gordon, I will try to come back to talk to you about other things -- e.g., what you said about mortal and venial sins. Please excuse me for the further delay that will result.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.

Question, Friends.

I am 36 so it has been a few years since I was in Catholic school. But I THINK I rember that at the celebration of the holy Mass that venial sins are forgiven. Am I correct in my thinking, or am I wrong ? I am asking on this thread because venial sins were brought up a few times here ?

Note Glenn. I am not saying that one does not have to confess these sins at Confession.

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), January 23, 2002.

> "Eugene, you may have a point, but then that sounds like the Decree of Nullity is some kind of divorce?"

Sorry John to put your through so much work, but it was not a serious question as I know an anullment is not a divorce. I was just voicing my complaint that I doubt the validity of some anullments.

I hope with the requirement that a lot of archdioceses are asking of people, with a 6 month wait and marriage preparation course, that this will cut down on the number of anullments being given out in the future.

Maybe it is just a sad reflection of our times, as a lot of people are not being sincere when entering into marriage, for example saying they are open to having kids, and then one of the party, refusing to have children.

I still have problem with anullments being given out for those claiming that they did not understand what they were getting into. How can this be, as this also reflects on the Church being incompetent in informing people what they are getting into! Not exactly a vote of confidence in our Church's today!

Should not the original Priest of an invalid marriage be held accountable?

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 23, 2002.

Gordon,

No you can't hold the Priest accountable. The Catholic Priest does not know what is on someones mind at the time. He is doing his job. But he can not look into a crystal ball and tell you what someone knows at the time or does not know.

Is a Circuit Court Judge held responsible in a felony jury trial, when 10 years later new evidence comes into the picture ? No, a Judge or a prosecutor can never be sued as person about a case, but what evidence or witness's is brought up now is after the fact. Right Gordon ?

Note, Glenn. I mentioned jury trial in my example, but a Bench trial would be same result, because you can't sue Judge or state in a situation like one mentioned.

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), January 23, 2002.

David, I am referring to anullments given out for people who claim they did not understand what they were getting into.

If someone got married in a parish, and got an annullment because they did not understand what they were getting into, then there should be a full investigation as to why!

All marriages done by that priest, or parish, should be investigated to see if they are valid. The couples should be contacted and asked if they understood what they were getting into. They should be made to sign a document stating that fact, and if they do not, then they should be told that their marriage is possibly not valid in the eyes of God. We have a moral duty to do this!

Of course none of this is done, and I suspect because this whole excuse of not understanding what they were getting into is BOGUS! It's a farce to get an annulment. If it is not, then someone should be held accountable. Why is the Church not doing this? Is almost as if they are complacent in treating the annullment as a divorce.

It's the priests and the Church's DUTY to make sure the sacrament of marriage is valid! This is extremly important! Am I the only one here who feels this way? Is not the validity of the sacrament of marriage important?

How about the other sacraments? Maybe I was not babtized because my parents did not fully understand the matter? Should I get re-baptized? How about confession. Maybe I don't fully understand it, and have never been forgiven? I have never been asked by a priest if I understand it! You know what, when I was confirmed in the Church, my opinion was never asked. It was a formality, that I just went through the process. I was young too, so how could I really understand it? So maybe I should never take the Eucharist?

As you can see the standards to the other sacraments involve a presumption that people understand it, but many anullments are being given out to people who claim they did not understand it.

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 23, 2002.

Hi, Gordon.

Gordon- " I am refering to anullments given out to people who claim they did not understand what they were getting into. "

Gordon, I do NOT know anything about anullments except from what I read John write about them. But I don't think they are given because of what someone " claims. " They are not, " given out " Gordon. The holy Church rules on whether or not a couple was validly married in God's eyes. There is a investigation into this. So I disagree with your statement about, " Given out for people who claim they did not understand what they were getting into. "

Gordon, how can the priests be held responsible for a invalid marriage ? Because the annulement is not about whether the priest did his job correctly. This is not the Court of Special Appeals. Where the appeal is on the trial Judge mistakes ! There might be something that the priest has no idea of, ( mental illness, etc..)

God bless you.

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), January 23, 2002.

I agree David that the Priests cannot be held accountable for a lot of things, but if a person claims that they did not understand what they were getting into, it could be a result of a lack of instruction from the Church. If that is the case, then the Priest who married them, was not fulfilling his duty. Why is he not held accountable? He should be told that what he was doing was wrong, and should be instructed in the faith in that regard. Maybe take some courses on how to prepare people for marriage.

You mention the example mental illness, but people are getting anullments, by the mere fact of claiming they did not understand what they were getting into, and having nothing to do with mental illness. If that is the case, that could equally apply to all the sacraments! Why is their a presumption by the Church that we understand the other sacraments, but marriage which involves vows before witnesses, is now open to interpretation?

I know anullment means no marriage, and the ruling only states that, but you have to receive something from the Church to prove this if wishing to remarry in the Church, so something is given out, and that is the decree, which I assume is a document of somekind.

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 23, 2002.

David S.,

Can you tell me why you addressed two independent statements directly to me? Here they are:

Note Glenn. I am not saying that one does not have to confess these sins at Confession.

and

Note, Glenn. I mentioned jury trial in my example, but a Bench trial would be same result, because you can't sue Judge or state in a situation like one mentioned.

Is there some other Glenn on this forum? Since this forum has been diluted with anti-Catholic posters, I have not been able to keep up. Please email me at the email address I sent you if I do not respond to your post. Thanks.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), January 23, 2002.

Glenn, bigfoot made me do it! !:.)

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), January 24, 2002.

David S.,

I am not sure who Bigfoot is. But why those statements. Have I said something to the contrary? Thanks.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), January 24, 2002.

Yeah, it's all my fault! David just likes to disagree with me! ;-)

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 24, 2002.

I think I now understand. Thank you.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), January 24, 2002.

Jmj

Hi, David S.

You wrote: "... I THINK I rember that at the celebration of the holy Mass that venial sins are forgiven. Am I correct in my thinking, or am I wrong? ... Glenn, I am not saying that one does not have to confess these sins at Confession."

You are correct in recalling that venial sins can be forgiven at Mass -- for those who are sorry for those sins. I believe that forgiveness may occur either in the Penitential Rite or in the act of receiving Holy Communion. The Catechism says the following, based on the Council of Trent: "1394. As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins."

It won't surprise you to hear that the Catechism also says that perfect contrition brings about forgiveness of venial sins. But it may surprise you to know that I would disagree with the comment you addressed to Glenn. In fact, venial sins forgiven through the Mass do not have to be confessed (though there is no prohibition against confessing them). Actually, no venial sins ever have to be confessed, though the Church does encourage such confession -- and that too is mentioned in the Catechism: "1458. Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. ... Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. ..."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

Jmj

Hi, Gordon.
I have finally had a chance to read your response to my 01/22 post on this thread -- and also to read your reply to me (on a similar subject) on the thread that Atila started on 01/22. (I think that I may reply to you over there also, time permitting!)

I really admire your frankness. On this thread, you stated (very early), "Please correct me if I said anything wrong above, as I am not expert in such matters." And on the other thread, you admitted two things -- that you might be overly cynical about these matters and that you were making judgments based on rather limited anecdotal evidence.

I know that such a thing is hard for us to do psychologically, but I really would like you to encourage you to make a fresh start in your evaluation of pastors, tribunals, and decrees of nullity. I feel convinced that you have arrived at some incorrect conclusions/assumptions about validity/invality of marriage and the job that tribunals and pastors are doing. And, as a result of the discouragement that you have begun to feel, cynicism really has crept in. I believe that things are not nearly as bad as they have seemed to you.

You may recall that, on this thread, several days ago, I asked you earnestly not to refer to the nullity process as "Catholic divorce." Trying to reassure me, you replied as follows: "Sorry John to put your through so much work, but it was not a serious question, as I know an anullment is not a divorce. I was just voicing my complaint that I doubt the validity of some anullments." And you quoted a statement you had made on the 21st: "Eugene, you may have a point, but then that sounds like the Decree of Nullity is some kind of divorce?"

Yes, Gordon, that comment was not too troubling, but you must have missed the fact that I had mentioned this: "... you made my hair stand on end by using [the phrase, "Catholic divorce"] on the 18th (and then again on the 21st)." Here, Gordon, is what you said on the 18th, which really troubled me and prompted me to write my 01/22 message: "Annulment today in many cases is equivalent to Catholic divorce."

OK, Gordon. I'm convinced from what you have now said here and on one or two other threads that you realize how radically different are a divorce and a decree of nullity. But in recent posts (replying to me and David S), you have made some other statements that make me wish to respond ...

You stated, "Should not the original Priest of an invalid marriage be held accountable?"
Well, if he did something wrong, he will be accountable to God. I don't see how any kind of public accountability is possible.

You also wrote: "If someone got married in a parish, and got an annullment because they did not understand what they were getting into, then there should be a full investigation as to why!"

In the first place, I believe that I have seen you refer to this kind of thing a few times here and several times on the other thread -- i.e., decrees of nullity supposedly issued "because [someone claims] they did not understand what they were getting into." Here is another example from this thread: "[P]eople are getting anullments by the mere fact of claiming they did not understand what they were getting into ...."

The one thing that I would like to convince you of, more than any other, Gordon -- because I think that it will change your whole outlook on this -- is that no tribunal could ever issue a decree of nullity on the basis of such a flimsy statement -- "claiming they did not understand what they were getting into."

A tribunal has to have much more solid, substantial evidence than such a generality. I would ask you to trust that these judges, highly trained and exposed to large numbers of case studies, do their utmost not to let anyone "pull the wool over their eyes." They must start with the presumption of marital validity and must be forced to set that presumption aside by the power of the evidence, before they can issue a decree. This is because they have a great respect for the Sacrament and don't want to trivialize it.

Gordon, you also wrote: "All marriages done by that priest, or parish, should be investigated to see if they are valid. The couples should be contacted and asked if they understood what they were getting into. They should be made to sign a document stating that fact, and if they do not, then they should be told that their marriage is possibly not valid in the eyes of God. We have a moral duty to do this!"

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. I believe that this would be impractical, unnecessary, and horribly unsettling to so many people who are living peaceful lives. The last thing the other families need is to be contacted and placed in a troubled state of mind about the validity of their marriages.

Perhaps there is one thing that may ease your mind about this. The bishop gets to review the work of his tribunal, so he can see which of his priests (if any) were involved in the preparation of couples whose unions proved to be invalid. The bishop will be able to notice a trend and make a judgment that this or that priest may either be failing to prepare couples well or be failing to elicit the proper responses from them (proving that they are really ready for marriage and willing to obey Church law).

The bishop can handle the correction of such priests properly. That is why I earlier mentioned that "public accountability" is not possible; I had in mind that "private accountability" (to the bishop) may be possible. So, I agree, to a certain extent, with another statement that you made, as long as the bishop will be carrying out what you recommend: "If that is the case, then the Priest who married them, was not fulfilling his duty. ... He should be told that what he was doing was wrong, and should be instructed in the faith in that regard. Maybe take some courses on how to prepare people for marriage."

However, let us (laity and bishops) not be overly hard on pastors. Imagine a good, hard-working priest who prepares 25 couples for marriage in a given year. Suppose he does an excellent job of presenting the facts and the law to them. Suppose 20 understand him, answer his questions properly, and then enter into valid, holy, and long marriages. Now suppose that the other 5 misunderstand him, yet answer his questions suitably. I do not believe that the priest can be blamed if those five couples later obtain decrees of nullity due to their incapacity to grasp one or more key points taught in the marriage preparation classes. Unintentional mishaps do occur, and there is not always someone to blame.

Perhaps I'll be back with another post here later, Gordon. I recall wanting to address something about sin to you and David B. And on the other thread, I'll try to remember to speak about the large numbers of decrees of nullity.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.