My Wife and I were married for 5 years, she is Catholic and I am not and we were never married in the catholic Church. Shortly before our 5th Wedding anniversary, she left me and our 3 children for another man. Now on some sundays her and her new boyfriend (who is catholic) Take our children to church and partake in communion. That is the background, now my question is can she have our marriage annuled by the church to marry this other guy without me having any say so in the situation? Also what would be this process if she did take this course of action? And last question is she allowed to be partaking in Communion after her leaving and the infidelity?

-- Brenson Collins (brenson.collins@jtfcs.northcom.mil), February 28, 2005

Answers

She can petition for annulment without your consent, but the tribunal will not make a decision without giving you the opportunity to offer your input. However, the situation as you described it (she being a Catholic, not married in the Church) virtually guarantees that the annulment would be granted. No, she should not be receiving Communion under the present circumstances.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 28, 2005.

Now on some sundays her and her new boyfriend (who is catholic) Take our children to church and partake in communion.

Brenson,

Your children may well be confused and thier future faith may suffer by such actions your wife examples. I would suggest you schedule an appointment with the Parish Pastor and discuss the issue frankly - just the facts...

If he does nothing write your Bishop.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 28, 2005.

She should have gone to confession prior to receiving Communion. The rest depends on whatever transpired between her and her confessor, which I'm sure involves many things not brought to light in your question above.

As to the annulment question, I'm afraid Paul M is wrong in this one instance. Should she wish to remarry in the Catholic church, all she needs to do is bring a few documents to the priest (baptismal certificate, marriage certificate, divorce decree), and a representative of the tribunal can certify that she is free to marry in the Catholic church without you being contacted at all.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.

Mark, it was not proper for you to say that Paul M is "wrong," because there is insufficient information in Brenson's message for you to say that.

Brenson refers to the woman involved as his "wife," and he never mentions a divorce. He also does not say whether or not his "wife" was a Catholic at the time of their wedding. Thus, until more information is available, the prudent thing is to assume that they were validly married and have not yet been divorced.

Although Paul M should have mentioned these things to Brenson (and should have asked him for more details), he was not "wrong" to have told Brenson that, based on what he had thus far revealed, "she should not be receiving Communion under the present circumstances."

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 28, 2005.

I intended to mention that Daniel made a slip in telling Brenson, "If he" (the woman's "Parish Pastor") "does nothing, write your Bishop." Daniel should have said that Brenson should attempt to contact the parish pastor's bishop, since Brenson is not Catholic.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 28, 2005.

Although Paul M should have mentioned these things to Brenson (and should have asked him for more details), he was not "wrong" to have told Brenson that, based on what he had thus far revealed, "she should not be receiving Communion under the present circumstances."

Take a chill pill. If you'll take the time to read my response as carefully as you have pored over the other posts, you'll see that I was referring to the "annulment question", not the "communion question", when I corrected Paul M.'s statement.

My point was that for lack of form cases brought by the Catholic party, I am not aware of a single diocese that gives the other party the opportunity to offer their input. In most dioceses, the other party is not even contacted, either before or after the fact.

How about we focus on helping the people who come here for information and advice, instead of sniping at each other?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.

Daniel should have said that Brenson should attempt to contact the parish pastor's bishop, since Brenson is not Catholic.

I would suggest you reconsider your opinion -even if one does not recognize Brenson's human dignity, his marriage automatically gives him standing in our Church. A bishop ministers to all in his territory....

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 28, 2005.

Just to Clarify things when we got married my wife was and still is Catholic, as for me I am not, and we married in a Nazarene Church, the church I grew up in. It was her decision because we are both in the Navy and she was about to deploy and we already had a son that was born in Nov of the previous year. Now she left me and our 3 kids in Dec of last year upon her return from Deployment. She first told me that she had a spiritual growth while out to sea and that I not being catholic was not up to par, but as I soon found out it was becasue she had another man in her life. She had already been having sex with him and in Jan she moved in with him.

-- Brenson Collins (Brenson.collins@jtfcs.northcom.mil), February 28, 2005.

She should have gone to confession prior to receiving Communion.

irrelevant. if she intentionally continues to live in a state of objective adultery she cannot validly confess the sin without comitting sacrilage. God sees what is on our hearts and knows when we intend to continue in a state of mortal sin. if she is continually sleeping with this new man, not being in marraige with him, and further not knowing if it is adultery or not then she should not be partaking of either communion or confession until she has a true change of conciense and can partake of BOTH sacraments without abusing either.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 28, 2005.

another note: i'm not aware of any case of annulment where the other party is not contacted in the slightest. how would the tribunal know that there was not a dispensation by the bishop that is being hidden by the petitioner unless they contacted the spouse? it would be entirely irresponsible for them to act without all the information.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 28, 2005.

how would the tribunal know that there was not a dispensation by the bishop that is being hidden by the petitioner unless they contacted the spouse?

The recent copy of the baptismal record of the Catholic party would contain an entry for the marriage; I don't know if it would have an entry for the dispensation itself.

In my diocese, the "lack of canonical form" form that the priest fills out doesn't even a spot for any type of contact information for the other spouse.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.

Mark, you quoted me from my previous message, as follows: Although Paul M should have mentioned these things to Brenson (and should have asked him for more details), he was not "wrong" to have told Brenson that, based on what he had thus far revealed, "she should not be receiving Communion under the present circumstances."

Then you said, Take a chill pill.

I have no idea what that phrase means. It sounds as though you are saying that I posted in a heat of passion. If so, you couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you just lack humility and cannot deal with being corrected. Maybe you have to try to deflect people's attention and make those who correct you look bad. If so, how childish!

You then told me, If you'll take the time to read my response as carefully as you have pored over the other posts, you'll see that I was referring to the "annulment question", not the "communion question", when I corrected Paul M.'s statement.

If you'd taken the time to read my response carefully, you'd have realized that I TOO was referring to the "annulment question," because it is closely intertwined with the "Communion question." And, as I previously pointed out, you didn't "correct" Paul M, because you didn't have facts enough to conclude that he was wrong.

You then told me that for lack of form cases brought by the Catholic party, I am not aware of a single diocese that gives the other party the opportunity to offer their input.

Well, big whoop-de-doo! YOU are "not aware" of something, and that is supposed to affect what I write, even if I AM "aware" of it! If you are going to answer people here, you'd better become "aware." As paul h has explained to you, it IS done and it OUGHT to be done. I know that it IS done, from having observed it with my own eyes. If it is not done where you live, a grave error is taking place. The "other party" needs to have the chance to offer testimony ===> for example, potential testimony that the Catholic petitioner had formally defected from the faith prior to the wedding. Perhaps you can realize how important THAT might be?

Then you told me, In most dioceses, the other party is not even contacted, either before or after the fact.

Pardon my French, but don't try to BS me, please. In order to post such a claim, you would have to have sent a questionnaire to thousands of tribunals in the world, and you would have to have received responses (supporting your allegation) from more than 50% of the world's dioceses. You sent no such questtionnaire. You just posted a guess that is in keeping with your personal hope or preference. That's why I say, "No BS, please."

You concluded by asking me, "How about we focus on helping the people who come here for information and advice, instead of sniping at each other?"

"Helping the people" is what I was trying to do, partly by correcting the erroneous "help" that someone had gotten. Your new comments, since they were added more errors and made me waste more time, deserve the "sniping" they just received. You'd do everyone a lot more good by admitting when you are wrong.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 28, 2005.

I know that it IS done, from having observed it with my own eyes.

Which diocese was this in?

If it is not done where you live, a grave error is taking place.

The practice is allowed by canon law.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.

The practice is allowed by canon law.

well, we can solve this debate QUITE easily, then, by you pointing us to the proper article of canon law which states that any type of annulment (lack of proper form included) may be considered by the tribunal without ever contacting the spouse.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 28, 2005.

Brenson,

I am ex-nav (submarines). Anyway, if I am not mistaken -unlike the now watered down civil law --in the military, adultery is still a UCMJ criminal offense and you could pursue some justice along this avenue right now...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 28, 2005.

Authentic Interpreation: Documentary process or the pre-nuptial investigation (cc. 1066 and 1686)

The doubt: Whether, in order to prove the state of freedom of those who, although bound to the canonical form, attempted marriage before a civil official or a non-Catholic minister, the documentary process mentioned in c. 1686 is necessarily required, or the prenuptial investigation dealt with cc. 1066-1067 suffices.

The response: Negative to the first. Affirmative to the second.

July 11, 1984 AAS 76 (1984) 746-747.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.

The authentic interpretation is permissive, in the sense that it allows, but does not require, the diocese to deal with "lack of form" cases without contacting the ex-spouse.

Note that contacting the ex-spouse is a requirement (c. 1677 §1 and c. 1508) of both formal and documentary cases.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.

Here are the complementary norms for canon 1067 from the NCCB.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.