Conversion to Catholicism, complex marriage issues

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I was baptized Protestant. I married a Catholic, in a Catholic Church. I did not convert. We were divorced, and I have remarried . My current spouse is Jewish. My spiritual journey keeps bringing me to the threshold of the Catholic Church, yet I fear my complex marriage history precludes my even considering conversion. Am I correct ? Thank you so much.

-- Paula Tatarinis (drswan@aol.com), May 08, 2003

Answers

Are you correct? No, not at all.

Hello, Paula.
You referred to your "complex marriage history," but it is not really complex. You probably realize that the Catholic Church presumes that you were (and still are) married validly to the man you now call your "ex-husband." If you are being drawn to conversion to Catholicism (or even if you were not), you need to ask the Church to consider the facts surrounding your "first" marriage, so that she can make a determination as to whether or not you really exchanged valid consent on your wedding day.

I recommend that you phone the rectory of your nearest Catholic parish [see Yellow Pages, if necessary] and make an appointment to speak to the pastor about the marriage situation and your attraction to the Faith. He will help you get the ball rolling. After the passage of some time, during which a Church marriage court (tribunal) will consider the facts, you may receive a Declaration of Nullity, notifying you that you never really were married to the Catholic man. If you do receive such word, then your "remarriage" will actually become the only marriage of your life, and the Church will be able to recognize it, presuming it to be valid.

While waiting for word from the tribunal, there is nothing to keep you from inquiring into the Catholic faith.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.


Hi Paula,

Just to inform you that G.F. Gecik have given you an excellent advice and even recommend you to phone of your nearest Catholic parish and make an appointment to speak to the pastor about the marriage situation and your attraction to your faith. I believe that G.F.Cecik has a good intention and in good faith to advice and help you.

I strongly belive that G.F. Gecik is a good and holy man who know what he is talking about and is trying to help out as many people as he can, but sometimes there are people in this forum who are 'mentally sick' and who are jealous of him for one reason or another and only know how to critise him.

Remember if G.F. Gecik have a bad intention to ill advice you he would not have ask you to phone to your nearest parish. Please do not listen to people like Rob Hume who knows how to condemn others and yet do nothing to help you. Rob only repeats what G.F. Gecik says when he ask you to go to the Priest.

God Bless you Paula and you too John

-- Vincent Koh (vincentkoh@pd.jaring.my), May 11, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, Vincent.

Thank you very much for coming to my defense. Your words are remarkably kind (even too kind, because I know that I am very far from being a "holy" man).

Rob Hume [not his real name, I'm sure] is lying to Paula in two ways:
(1) I have never "proclaimed" myself to be an "expert." This forum does not have "designated experts." Everyone knows that I am just a layman who is familiar with some facts, but not others.
(2) The only one whose "warnings" to me have been deleted by the Moderator is ... "Rob Hume" himself. He must have violated a rule (e.g., impersonating me or another person at the forum), so he lost the privilege of posting.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.


Dear Paula,

John is correct.

I hope you know your current relationship is scandal to those like myself who have thus far been faithful to our spouses who have been unfaithful to their vows. It should be a scandal to all christians, not so since the reformation however.

But do not think that I am acting as your judge for pointing this out. That is God's arena.

There are reasons which justify divorce but nevertheless each divorce makes it easier for the next one and each remarriage after a divorce encourages more of the like and so on, until today there are no societal pressures in favor of marriage. This is an easily excused reality today which most catholics , in my opinion, find judgemental even to say.

But those catholics who feel that way are simply wrong. And that is a major part of the problem.

Paula, good luck on your journey.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.


Dear Paula,

Don't despair about returning to the Catholic church due to marriage issues. Let me tell you my story...

I was a baptised Protestant, married another baptised Protestant...in a Protestant church. After sixteen years, we were divorced. I was "no religion" after that for awhile.

Then, after two years, I re-married a man who was born and baptised a Catholic but had been away from the church for years and did not practice it. Therefore, together...neither one of us was religious at all. We got married on the beach with a notary public (legal in Florida).

One year after we were married, I converted to Catholicsm...on my own...he was still away from the Church. I got an annulment from the Church regarding my previous marriage. It took about a year and a half. During this time, my second husband also returned to the Catholic church, because of my example (To God be the glory).

Now...here's the sticky part...stay with me....

If you've followed the story up to this point, I'm now Catholic and free to marry because of the annulment. BUT, my husband was married before, to another Catholic who had renounced her faith and they were married at the city hall, and then divorced. According to the Church, he was never married to the first woman because they didn't get married in a Catholic church, with a priest. However, he still has to get something from the diocese to show that his first marriage was of incorrect form. This doesn't take as long as a full annulment, only about a month or two. Then, he will be "free to marry" as well...we can get our marriage validated and everything will be hunky-dory.

THE TWIST OF FATE IS....

I was baptised and accepted into the Church this last Easter Vigil, where I also was confirmed and had my first communion (a joy which I cannot describe here in words)...BUT...since I am not "sacramentally married" to my husband, we would be NOT be living in a "state of grace" and would not be allowed to take communion...unless, we remain celebate until things can be sorted out. The priest said either choice would be OK and that the Church would not force such a "trial of suffering" on anybody, since we were legally married and had the intention of getting the marriage validated. We would just not be able to take communion for a while.

But, we BOTH decided to practice chastity...yes, you heard right...in this day and age...until we receive the "form" from the diocese and can validate our marriage. My husband and I both willingly agreed to this. You would think it would be terrible but actually it has been a great blessing and has deepened our relationship with each other more than I could've ever imagined. This trial of suffering, has actually turned out to be the best blessing ever (as most things are with God)!!!

So, Paula, don't lose heart. Please don't think I'm preaching celebacy to anyone, I'm not. I'm advocating going back to the Church and sticking it out to get through the process...even if you can't take communion for a while. When you finally do, the joy you have will be worth the waiting and struggle...believe me!

Finally, truth is truth. Either something is true, or it isn't. The real decision here is whether or not you think Catholicism is truth or not. If it's not, then don't even worry about these things. If it IS true, then the Church teaches that God loves you and wants you to come to Him, even if your past is checkered, striped or plaid. Have courage...step toward the light (truth).

God Bless You

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 19, 2003.



Jmj
Hello, Victoria.

I have now read your messages on two threads and I am more than anxious to say, "Welcome to the forum!" I read the following words of yours with great admiration:

we BOTH decided to practice chastity ... yes, you heard right ... in this day and age ... until we receive the 'form' from the diocese and can validate our marriage. My husband and I both willingly agreed to this. You would think it would be terrible but actually it has been a great blessing and has deepened our relationship with each other more than I could've ever imagined. This trial of suffering, has actually turned out to be the best blessing ever (as most things are with God)!!!

In your willingness to live sacrificially, you and the man you love are role models for so many couples in the world today. Soon you will experience something akin to a "second honeymoon."

May God bless you richly for your respect for his Commandments and the sacrament of Marriage.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 20, 2003.


Thank you, John. Before I posted anything to this forum, I read a great many posts. I have admired your sound advice on many threads, and judging from the others' comments about your good counsel, I am happy to receive your encouragement.

God Bless You and May You Continue to Be a Source of Inspiration...

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 22, 2003.


Thank you, Victoria, for your praise and prayers.
(By the way, the "verdict" is not unanimously in my favor. If you keep reading, you'll see that I'm some folks' least favorite person! But we must roll with the punches.)
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 23, 2003.

Dear Victoria,

What is the compelling reason for you and "the man who is not your husband" to remain living together while you are not married in the eyes of God? If you are not married in the Catholic Church and you define yourself as a Catholic then you should never refer to a person you are living with as your husband. That is scandalous in public. Marriage is a public institution. Many clergy conveniently ignore that fact, inviolation of the teachings of the Church.

If I understand your story, you have related that you are living with a man you are civilly married to but not married sacramentally to.

If this is correct, my understaning that is, then you are not following the teaching of the Church you are following a priest, maybe even a bishop's personal advice. I really do not want to comment more unless I understand correctly because I do not want what I am saying to be misunderstood.

If I am attacked for this comment, I will be attacked wrongfully, I believe but that is the price I am willing to pay for truth.

I hope you will reply and allow me to comment when I can. But I do think, earnestly, there is error here which needs clarification.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 24, 2003.


Victoria,

I just want to reemphasize that I think you are setting a great example by following the direction of your priest as regards your remarriage. And I hope that I speak for many others here in this regard.

I cannot think of a single instance that you should even consider following Karl over your priest. Quite frankly, the only thing that you could do that would satisfy Karl would be to leave your new husband and move back with your first husband.

On a more productive note, do you have any idea how long your husband's decree of nullity is expected to take? My recollection is that it is based on lack of canonical form. Mine took only four days to process, but it was given expedited treatment so that it would not hold up my joining the Church. If it has been a while, you might want to talk with your priest or the tribunal to check on the status of your husband's case.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 24, 2003.



Frankly Mark that is false witness against your neighbor, which last i racalled was a violation of one of the 10 Commandments and a mortal sin. But these days everything is a venial sin because we are too stupid to seek the truth and too arrogant to admit it. As well as too well schooled in moral relativism due to the newspeak in the Church.

None of that is false witness.

Karl

-- KARL (pARKERKAJWEN@HOTMAIL.COM), May 27, 2003.


Dear Karl,

The biblical account regarding the Samaritan woman in John 4:16-18 says, "Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here. The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, `I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly."

Therefore, by the current designation of the Church, and by the words of Jesus himself, you, Karl, are correct in saying that the man I live with is not my "husband".

However, living with someone of the opposite sex is not a sin. There are many communities that have both men and women. Even in a secular setting, there are college dormatories that are co-ed, and roommates who share a house or apartment, to be able to afford the rent. Being in the same house with someone of the opposite sex is not a sin. Having sex with them when you are not married to them IS a sin. Therefore, the "man I live with" and I have not committed a sin.

So, why don't we seperate until the marriage? To be honest, it's because I am disabled and need to have help. Also, because I am disabled, I do not have a job, nor any income, other than social security disability, which would not cover my living expenses. "The man I live with" has been kind enough to allow me to stay here, to pay all of the bills, and to take care of me...all in exchange for NO SEX. What a yutz, huh?

My previous "husband" abandoned me, in part due to my illness, which made the "nullity of the marriage" process very easy to prove to the St. Petersburg Diocese...a process which took a year and a half, with the many written pages of witnesses to the "marriage", and about twenty pages of my own heart rendering, soul-searching, dialogue. My previous "husband" is now married to someone else, so the possibility of my going back to him, is now closed...even IF he would take me in...which he wouldn't. Also, I was not a Catholic when we divorced, nor was he. I converted later...after the divorce...after my previous "husband's" remarriage.

So, Karl, all I can offer is that I can only do the best I can in my situation, and try to please and follow Jesus to the best of my ability. You're right Karl, the situation could probably be even MORE pure, but I am not able to obtain that level, at this time. God forgive me.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 27, 2003.


Dear Mark,

Since we are only waiting for a decree of "incorrect form" from our diocese, it should only take a few weeks. Besides...if two people are in love and committed to each other, and have Christ in the center of their relationship, this short period of abstinence should not be a problem. Our commitment to each other, following Christ, and being a witness to others, makes this possible. Plus a lot of prayer and grace from the Holy Spirit...ha ha!

Once we've been officially married (within the next few weeks) I will post the happy news...and then everyone can get on with other important topics on the board.

Thanks for your encouragement, Mark!

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 27, 2003.


Dear Victoria,

Thanks for the reply.

If you share a love, which is only appropriate for husband and wife ( and I do not mean simply sexual intercoarse) then a sister and brother love is a sham. I know of no brother and sister who plan to be married. This is by no means an attack upon either of you. Just the facts. A love directed towards marriage is in appropriate. You are not in the batter´s box. Sorry but the facts.

I have been faithful to my vows for well over a decade and I am not a yutz. It is my obligation based upon my beliefs. Nor have I dated. Of coarse that makes me very strange these days but our five children and my promise as well as the public scandal it would be, even if no one knew, are all worth it to me.

If your husband left you because of your disability he is a fool with precious little character. But his leaving you so wrongly (assuming yourdisability was the major point of departure) is not a ground for divorce. But I can imagine it was parlayedby the tribunal into ¨"proof" of his immaturity? Was it? Were the grounds lack of due discretion? Or were they lack of competance? Most likely the former. That ground is terribly abused in the US, much to the very public dismay of the Pope, who has offered restrictive use of it which American canonists refuse to follow.

I would not expect you to return to a husband who abandoned you. It would be his obligation to seek your forgiveness before you would consider anything. Obviously he is quite the man in his own mind. Nowthat you have received an annulment, if it is a valid annulment by Rotal standards not US standards then morally you are not bound any longer.

I am not your judge Victoria. And having been abandoned myself, although my abandonement was completely sanctioned by the Church to- gether with the assurances of obtaining an annulment by a variety of çlerical sources, I have great empathy for your position. Considering your diability it makes it even more heartwrenching.

But all things related to marriage must be made in a way that, especially publically, respects marriage and always defers to its indissolubility and sanctity. This is where I part company with the conservative liberals in this forum and most of the conservatives in the Church.

If you and the man you are with even appear to be a couple you are dishonoring marriage, openly. I do not know how toput it more delicately. Your situation is not an excuse for scandal, it sends a clear message which is wrong. IOt assists in the destabilizing of marriage as a whole and contributes to easier divorce and the disintigration of the family. These are serious issues which hardly anyone considers when it means real sacrifice to them. It is given mere lip service by the Church.

Victoria, we are all fallen. To the extent that I have hurt you unjustly( I do not know that I have) I would not want to add to you burden. But each of us must constantly look objectively at our living situations to see that they reflect God`s plan and not some compassion overdriven solutions conceived by man.

I hope this clarifies thing a bit. Once again, thank you for the reply.

In my opinion, things which I have cautioned about avoiding, themselves have contributed to both of our heartaches. So in that way we are joined.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 27, 2003.


not a ground for(annulment, not divorce)!!! oops

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 27, 2003.


Thank you for your words, Karl. I do appreciate your heartache, as well. I also understand your position and I do not disagree with it. I am considered more "traditional" than most of the Catholics in this area, but that is probably because I write apologetics and have to constantly research these things. During my research, my conscience is often "pricked" by the Holy Spirit, when I discover things that I shouldn't be doing that I thought were OK, and by things I should be doing that I'm not. (St. Paul said this too.)

The good news is that we are now free to marry and will be validating our marriage next week, therefore it will no longer be a public scandal. (Although, no one knows this but our priest, so there is no public scandal, per se.)

As for God ever forgiving me for the past, I cannot answer that. Only He can. I must have faith in the MERCY of Jesus Christ, who in this age is granting mercy to all souls who trust in Him. In the next age, He will come as a judge only, and it will be too late to repent. [See Chaplet of the Divine Mercy/St. Faustina for more info on this point.]

I do regret getting a divorce, however, I was not a Catholic, nor a God-fearing person at the time. After I converted, I realized (too late) that getting divorced had an incredible price to pay...not just spiritually, but emotionally as well. Now, as a Catholic, I would not even consider divorce, but in my pagan past, I did not know the truth of this.

However, since I do not have a "key to a Time Machine" I am afraid I can't go back and "re-do" this part of my past. I can only trust in Christ's forgivness and live according to His call from this point forward.

Again, thank you for your words. They are not falling on deaf ears.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 30, 2003.


Oh...I forgot one point...

Although I converted two years ago, I entered into the Catholic Church At Easter Vigil, last month, through Confirmation, Baptism, and the Eucharist. I learned in my RCIA class that when one is baptized, they are cleansed of ALL previous sin. (This explains why converts are baptized, because they lived non-Christian lives before...in sin.) So, is this true...or does the Spirit of God leave little "pockets" of dirt lying around the soul?

As I'm am new to this whole thing...Was my RCIA instructor wrong on this point...meaning that my divorce is still viewed by God as a sin on my record, so to speak?

If so, then all of a person's sins, even as a non-Christian, would still be with him or her ...such as abortion, lust, greed, and a breaking of one or all of the ten commandments. How can this be?

I would just like everyone's thoughts on the difference between sinning as a non-Catholic, being baptized, and then living as a new creation in Christ, within the Catholic Church and her teachings.

I am not an expert on Catholicism, nor do I have a Canonical Law, nor Theology degree, therefore, I can only go by what the Church tells me. Since the Church told me that I need to get a nullity of marriage, and then have my current, sinful, civil marriage validated, and not to have marital relations until then, that's what I'm doing.

If The Church tells me something "wrong", (which according to my RCIA training is impossible, because the teachings of The Church are infallable) i.e., a priest tells me something incorrect, how am I supposed to know this? I'm depending on, and trusting in, the priests and Bishops in my Diocese to be my spiritual directors. What more can a Catholic do?

Please explain this to me...a newbie Catholic.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 30, 2003.


Dear Victoria,

Your instructor was not wrong on the basic teaching. Baptism removes all sin and all traces of spiritual debt for sin, so that a newly baptized adult is spiritually as pure as a newly baptized baby. That's why an adult approaching baptism does not receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) first. However, for that very reason, your instructor was wrong in allowing you to receive the sacraments of initiation while you were still in an unresolved marital situation comprising an objective ongoing state of sin. Such situations must be resolved before receiving the sacraments. Too often compassion (or indifference?) overrides Canon Law, which amounts to doing what feels good instead of doing what is right. My wife and I have taught RCIA for quite a few years, and just about every year we have some people in the class who cannot be formally received into the Church with the rest of the class, due to unresolved and for the moment unresolvable moral issues, primarily marital situations. Such situations constitute an impediment to proper disposition, which is a requisite for valid and licit reception of the sacraments. What would be the point of allowing a person to receive a sacrament which removes all traces of sin, knowing that they will unavoidably be leaving the church after the ceremony and returning to a situation of objectively grave sin? This is a disservice to the persons receiving the sacraments. When the persons taking the RCIA receive the sacraments, we are frequently joined by one or two or three people from previous classes, who were unable at that time to receive the sacraments, but whose situations have since been rectified. The good news is that once your situation is resolved, you will receive the fullness of the grace provided by the sacraments which you received prematurely and illicitly through no fault of your own - except that you will have to confess sins committed since your baptism, which unfortunately now include your unresolved marital situation. It sounds like you are well on the road to making things right, and it is obvious that you take seriously the responsibility of doing so. May God bless you abundantly on your journey.

The Church cannot teach you something "wrong" as a matter of doctrine, but an individual priest can certainly tell you plenty of things wrong as a matter of personal opinion, even on matters where he has no right to voice personal opinion, such as defined doctrine and currently binding disciplines. An individual Catholic does have a right to expect that a priest or bishop will be a reliable spiritual guide, but sadly that is not always the case. A Catholic should personally study the teachings of the Church, at least at the depth provided in the Catechism, and if a priest advises you to act contrary to the official teaching of the Church, you should ask him to explain how his advice relates to the Church's official teaching as recorded in the Catechism. If he doesn't give you a satisfactory answer, seek advice from a different priest next time.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 30, 2003.


Regarding "Brother & Sister"

I was reading Clement's Second Letter, and in it he happens to decribe the way Christian brothers and sisters should act toward each other. The Church teaching on "living as brother and sister" does NOT mean uterine brother and sister, it means Brother and Sister, in Christ. I'm afraid some people were getting the wrong idea, due to the modern way of describing brothers and sisters that we use, rather than what the Early Church Fathers meant by "brother and sister." Just wanted to clear that up for everyone.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 31, 2003.


Jmj

Hello, Victoria and Paul.

Paul, I think that you were mistaken in something that you told Victoria: "... your instructor was wrong in allowing you to receive the sacraments of initiation while you were still in an unresolved marital situation comprising an objective ongoing state of sin."

Paul, Victoria is not in "an objective ongoing state of sin." I think that you must not have read her first post on this thread, in which she says that she and the man she loves "both decided to practice chastity ... until we receive the 'form' from the diocese and can validate our marriage." [By "the 'form,'" she is referring to the Declaration of Nullity in the case of her friend's attempted marriage, which was invalid due to lack of canonical form.] So, they have been living chastely, as unmarried people must, awaiting the tribunal's final action. This allowed her to receive the "Sacraments of Initiation."


But now, Victoria, there is something in your messages that troubles me a bit. I don't want to alarm you unduly, but maybe you need to discuss this with your pastor.
In your second message on May 30, you wrote:
"Although I converted two years ago, I entered into the Catholic Church at Easter Vigil, last month, through Confirmation, Baptism, and the Eucharist."

However, in your first message on this thread (May 19), you wrote:
"Let me tell you my story... I was a baptised Protestant, married another baptised Protestant ... in a Protestant church.

The reason I mention this, Victoria, is that if, in your Protestant days, you were validly baptized [in the Name of the Persons of the Trinity, with water], then the Catholic Church recognizes that baptism as the start of your life as a Christian. Therefore, if you were validly baptized years ago, it was not possible for you to be "re-baptized" as a Catholic at the Easter Vigil. (The rite would not have had any effect on you, because Baptism is a once-in-a-lifetime action.) Taking this one step farther ... if you were validly baptized years ago, then the rites of the Easter Vigil did not result in the forgiveness of your past sins. This would therefore mean that you now would need to make a "general confession" of the serious sins of your life since you were baptized.

Perhaps you knew about this already, though? Perhaps you received, on Easter Vigil, what is called a "conditional Baptism" because the priest was not sure if you were validly baptized as a Protestant? If so, then he would have heard your confession too, because of the possibility that you were baptized years ago.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 05, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ