I have read through many posts here on your message board and am quite confused about my own situation now.

First of all, let me say that I have met with the pastor of my church (about a week before he resigned for sexual misconduct).

Here is the situation: My husband was married in 1989 (not in the Catholic church). He divorced in 1992. We met the next year and married in a civil service in 1996 with a JP. I didnt believe we could get married in the Cathloic church since he had been married before. We were both raised Cathloic (up to Confirmation). We were away from the church until the Spring of this year. When we spoke with the priest about having our 3 children baptized, he mentioned that we should get married in the church and we agreed. As I mentioned, this priest is now gone and things are a little chaotic in the parish so I would love any advice here rather than have to bother them at this troubling time.

My questions are as follows: 1. Does my husband need an annulment? I was under the impression he didnt because his first marriage wasn't in the Cathloic church. 2. Are my husband and I being sinful by continuing relations now? 3. What is the ceremony we will be going through? A Bleessing? A convalidation? What is the difference?

Thanks, Rachael

-- Rachael (ognollaig@aol.com), December 21, 2002

Answers

Hi Rachael,

I hope I answer correctly, but I'm certain that any mistakes I convey will be fixed.

In answer to your first question, was your husband married civilly or in a church of any kind? Any church wedding is seen as a recognized union, if I recall rightly, and must be annulled before a second marriage can occur.

Your second question; it sounds like it could be considered a sinful situation. But the upside is that it can be righted.

And lastly, I think the solution to your marriage would involve a blessing of the union...thus making it a valid and sacramental Catholic marriage union.

Good luck to you both!

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), December 21, 2002.

Melissa,

Thanks for your prompt reply. Unfortunately I can't "right" the situation with my husband, since we own a home together and have 4 young children who rely on our care.

His first marriage was at a Church building, I have no idea who performed it. We have gotten copies of everything and submitted it to our church. The priest I spoke too said he wouldnt need an annulment, it was just a matter of simple paperwork.

Rachael

-- Rachael (Ognollaig@aol.com), December 22, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Rachael.

I'm afraid that the priest, depending on the facts and depending on exactly what he told you, seems to have given you incorrect information. (Unless he has admitted wrongdoing, he is only in a "suspended, accused" state now. But, if he was living a wretched moral life, he may also have been a poor administrator too, unable to give you good advice.)

A lot depends on what you meant when you said, "We were away from the church until the Spring of this year."

First, it is important is to know to what degree the man you love was "away from the [Catholic] Church." Did he ever formally leave the Church, declaring that he was no longer Catholic or that he was now a member of the "XYZ Church" -- or did he just sort of get lax and stop practicing his faith (without joining another religion)? [You need not answer me.]

The reason I ask this is that, if he remained Catholic (though non-practicing) then his first attempt at marriage was contrary to the "form" that Catholic marriage law requires -- making it undoubtedly invalid. But, if he formally renounced Catholicism before the 1989 wedding, then his first attempt at marriage will be presumed valid until the opposite is proved to the satisfaction of your diocesan marriage tribunal (a court that looks into these matters).

In either case, after the tribunal considers written testimony, it may or may not issue a Declaration of Nullity pertaining to what happened in 1989.

If the tribunal decides that the man has been married since 1989 to the first woman, then you are in the worst possible situation (as you can imagine). I'd rather not dwell on that possibility, but I have to mention it to you.

But if the tribunal decides that he was not married in 1989 (in God's eyes), then a decision must be made about the status of your current "union." This gets a bit complicated! [Keep in mind that the next three points come into play ONLY if the tribunal issues a Declaration of Nullity about the 1989 attempt at marriage.]
---- If you never formally broke with the Church yourself, but the man did, then you definitely are not yet married (due to lack of the "form" you were required to follow), and you must renew your consent a Catholic ceremony. [Canon Law does not use the term "vows" concerning marriage.]
---- If you formally broke with the Church, but the man never did, then again you are not yet married (due to lack of "form" he was required to follow), and you must renew your consent.
---- Finally, if both of you formally left the Church prior to your 1996 wedding, then your marriage is presumed to be valid and only needs a formal recognition by the Church.

I'm sorry if I have confused you. I tried to keep it simple, but that is very hard to do. That's why a face-to-face conversation with a priest who is well-versed in Canon Law is what you really need now.

Your second question was, "Are my husband and I being sinful by continuing relations now?" The only way I can answer that is by saying, "Yes, if he is not really your 'husband.'" If he is still married to the first woman (in God's eyes), then adultery is involved, and it will take some time for this (if ever) to be resolved. If you two are not validly married yet, then fornication is involved, but that will be more quickly resolved. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, you may already be validly married, in which case you are not sinning now. If you speak to a well-trained priest soon, you will know your status exactly, and you will be able to decide what to do next. Even if you are in an "irregular" relationship, you will not be required to live separately. However, the circumstances may place you in a position of deciding to live "as brother and sister" while the tribunal is doing its work.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

Rachael,

I am sorry if I was unclear. When I said your situation could be righted, I meant that your marriage could be recognized as a valid one after gaining an annulment. And since you have shared that your husband did marry in a church, an annulment must be granted before your marriage can be blessed by the Catholic Church.

I wish you and your family all the best, and keep you all in my thoughts and prayers.

Happy Christmas, and a blessed New Year.

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

Hi,

Thanks for the great information! :)

The pastor DID admit to wrong-doing and did resign. The parish sent a letter along with an apology from the priest. Apparently when he was 43 he met a girl who was 16 and nearly left the church to marry her, but didn't. I don't what what happened behind the scenes 20+ years ago, but it all came out recently. My family had known him for many years and we really liked him so it was hard to deal with at first. The parish has an interim pastor right now, but he isnt used to being in a parish (he used to do some other kind of work with the deaf), so they havent been referring us to him for the "usual" questions.

When I said "away from the church", I only meant not going. Neither of us ever officially left the Cathloic religion, we just didnt go for many years. You wrote "Finally, if both of you formally left the Church prior to your 1996 wedding, then your marriage is presumed to be valid and only needs a formal recognition by the Church."--- does the same apply if neither of us ever left?

As far as the information about whether we are living in sin, I feel much better reading your response. We will be meeting with a long time family friend who is a Cathlic priest in a neighboring state in January. He has agreed to Baptize the 3 children and perform the service pertaining to our marriage (whatever that might be). He got permission from our parish to do it, so we should be all set. I guess I am just a little nervous about where things stand because I don't want to be doing something wrong when I am finally trying to make everything right! Ya know?

Again, thanks!

Rachael

-- Rachael (Ognollaig@aol.com), December 23, 2002.

Hello again, Rachael.

In your latest, you wrote: "When I said "away from the church", I only meant not going. Neither of us ever officially left the Cathloic religion, we just didnt go [to church] for many years."

Thank you for explaining this. Next, you wrote:

"You [John] wrote, 'Finally, if both of you formally left the Church prior to your 1996 wedding, then your marriage is presumed to be valid and only needs a formal recognition by the Church.' --- does the same apply if neither of us ever left?"

The answer is "No. It's different." Let's take the fact that neither of you left the Church and go to the pertinent statements in my first message to you ...

I wrote: "... if [the man you love] remained Catholic (though non-practicing) then his first attempt at marriage was contrary to the 'form' that Catholic marriage law requires -- making it undoubtedly invalid." [That is helpful, for starters.]

Then I wrote: "... after the tribunal considers written testimony, it may or may not issue a Declaration of Nullity pertaining to what happened in 1989." [Unless the tribunal hears from a witness that contradicts the man, saying that he left Catholicism and joined XYZ Church, I'm sure that it will issue the Declaration. Please note that, if someone told you that the case would not have to get an official ruling from the Church, he/she was mistaken. However, the ruling may be obtained rather quickly (perhaps a few to several months).]

Then I wrote: "... if the tribunal decides that he was not married in 1989 (in God's eyes), then a decision must be made about the status of your current 'union.'"
I see now, Rachael, that I then covered only three of the four possible situations (that he left the Church but you did not ... that you left the Church but he did not ... and that both of you left the Church). I did not explain what is true in the fourth situation, which is the actual situation in your life -- that neither of you left the Church.

It is similar to the first two situations ... You are not yet married, due to the absence of the Canonical "form" you were required to follow. You must give your consent in a Catholic ceremony of the Sacrament of Marriage.

Although this may not be what you thought I might say, Rachael, I think that you need to read my final paragraph again now, in light of my stating that you are not yet married (in the eyes of the Church):
"Your ... question was, 'Are my husband and I being sinful by continuing relations now?' The only way I can answer that is by saying, 'Yes, if he is not really your "husband."' ... If you two are not validly married yet, then fornication is involved, but that will be ... quickly resolved. ... Even if you are in an 'irregular' relationship, you will not be required to live separately. However, [to avoid sin,] the circumstances ... place you in a position of ... [needing] to live 'as brother and sister' while the tribunal is doing its work." I recommend that you print out this thread and show it to the priest that you will be meeting in January. I think that it will help him to advise you (and possibly to correct me, if I am mistaken).

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 24, 2002.

hello rachael first of all, the catholic church is not God or any other church at that.. why have faith in man have faith in the the word of god (the bible). you may get many different answers for your questions from several different people but that don`t mean any of them are even right remember that their opinions are still just opinions. but the bible is the truth and the life of our lord Jesus Christ.. for question number 1 does my husband need an annulment? again let the bible answer that question for you... "The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave His father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, LET NOT MAN SEPARATE."(or in your case an annulment) the man you call husband is still one flesh with the one you call exwife untill one of them die you will find this in Romans 7: 1 - 3 " You who are familiar with the law - don't you know that the law applies only to a person who is still living? Let me illustrate. When a woman marries, the law binds her to her husband as long as he is alive. But if he dies, the laws of marriage no longer apply to her." "So while her husband is alive, she would be committing adultery if she married another man. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law and does not commit adultery when she remarries" (NLT)

"Now for those who are married I have a command that comes not from me, but from the Lord. A wife must not leave her husband. But if she does leave him, let her remain single or else go back to him. And the husband must not leave his wife." (NLT)

Luke 16: 15 - 18 "Then He said to them, "You like to look good in public, but God knows your evil hearts. What the world honors is an abomination in the sight of God. Until John the Baptist began to preach, the Law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the good news of the Kingdom of God is preached, and eager multitudes are forcing their way in." "But that doesn't mean that the law has lost its force in even the smallest point. It is stronger and more permanent than heaven and earth. Anyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery and anyone whom marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (NLT)

I know you might think since his first marriage was not in a catholic church God did not honor their marriage but i can`t believe you think that only catholics (or any one religion) are saved when in fact the bible says Ro 10:9,10-THAT IF THOU SHALT CONFESS WITH THY MOUTH THE LORD JESUS, AND SHALT BELIEVE IN THINE HEART THAT GOD HATH RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, THOU SHALT BE SAVED. FOR WITH THE HEART MAN BELIEVETH UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS; AND WITH THE MOUTH CONFESSION IS MADE UNTO SALVATION. but what I think what your trying to say is that when your husband got married he was a sinner.. but do you think GOD don`t honor a sinners marriage but I will show you in the bible he does.....1st Corinthians Chapter 6 verse 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. so if god recognized a marriage with a harlot (is a harlot not a sinner) then why would you think god did not recognize your husbands first marriage...................................

but the truth is if your husbands first wife is still alive then you be married to him you shall be called an adulterous

click on this link, it should be very helpful lhttp://www.aaronsbibleuniversity.com/Documents/Doctrines/Repent.htm

-- Jason Edward Kennon (jasonkennon@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

Hello, Rachael.
Please ignore the comments of Jason Edward Kennon. You and I are Catholics. He is not. He is anti-Catholic, and he does not have helpful advice for you.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.

John,

Thanks for your note! I wasn't too worried about the post above. I live for God and do my best to be what He wants of me and that's all I can do!

On a side note, I wanted to share that our marriage was blessed in the Catholic Church this past Friday and the 3 kids were Baptized. It was a WONDERFUL ceremony! It may not have been the way God intended in, but I can speak for my entire family when we say that we all feel much closer to God, having now done the "right" thing!

Thank you for all your help along the way! This is a wonderful forum! :)

Rachael

-- Rachael (Ognollaig@aol.com), March 06, 2003.

Thanks for that BEAUTIFUL news, Rachael! You have made me so happy that I have tears of joy in my eyes. How great for your three precious children to be baptized and for you to be able to receive the sacraments!
Let's pray for each other, please.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.