ASK FATHER: Marriage problem, bad confession experience train wreck

In John 6, Jesus presents His followers with a difficult teaching: we must eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood in order to be saved. “Many of his disciples, hearing this, said, ‘This saying is hard, and who can hear it?’” They left Him.

I am sorry you had a bad experience, especially this past Sunday when the Church, according to the ordinary calendar, celebrated God’s mercy. It sounds as if the priest was less than helpful. As I remind people in my Tips for making a good confession, priests also have bad days. On a day when they are hearing many confessions, after having said a couple Masses, priests can get tired.

That said, while Father’s tone was unhelpful, what he said essentially is true. Someone who is living in an objective state that cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching cannot receive the sacrament of reconciliation until and unless their objective state changes. Essentially, Father was giving you the truth. What is more pastoral than that? He could have stated it much better, however.

It would not have been helpful to you in any way had Father given you absolution and said, “Go in peace.” You would still be in that objective state of sin.

As the disciples learned, sometimes Jesus’ and His Church’s teachings are hard. The solution isn’t to soften them. The solution is not to look for someone who twists Jesus’ teachings to suit our opinions. The solution is to change our lives to fit Christ’s and the Church’s guidance. That includes his tough words on the Eucharist, on marriage, on relationships, on suffering….

What Father probably should have, first, acknowledged that your return to the confessional was through a prompting of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is at work in your soul in ways that you might not be fully aware. It is good that you returned to confession. It took courage and strength to respond to what the Holy Spirit was asking, namely, to examine your life thoroughly and then lay out your sins before the priest and seek forgiveness. Father should have told you that, because of your marriage situation, you can’t receive absolution today, but that he’d be willing to meet with you later in the week (or, if he was a visiting priest, encouraged you to set up an appointment with the pastor) to look for a solution to your situation.

There may be a couple possible solutions, that would be best discussed face to face. Your husband would not need to convert to Catholicism in order to have your marriage celebrated in the Church, a dispensation or permission could be sought (and these are usually granted).

You are disappointed now. Do not be discouraged. The Holy Spirit who led you to the confessional in the first place does not give us discouragement. That’s what the Enemy prompts. God wants to right your relationship with the Church and with Himself. Anything that seems like an easy solution to a difficult situation probably won’t resolve anything.

Were you to, as you say, go elsewhere and find a different religion, knowing that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, what would you have solved? You would only be compounding your problems and endangering your soul. Should we seek out a religion that fits our lives, or should we instead seek out the religion that is true and change our lives to fit the truth?

After Christ’s gave his “hard teaching” in John 6, many disciples left Him. He asked those who remained, “Will you also go away?” St. Peter responded, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Embrace the truth, even when the truth hurts. The hurt is momentary and, in the long run, good for you. If the priest you encountered in the confessional was not helpful, seek another one who will help you to rectify your marriage situation and lead you back to regular reception of the Sacraments.

God does not make any provision in Scripture in the least for anything called an annulment.

Before addressing the issue of an annulment, we must first have a clear understanding of marriage. When the Pharisees questioned our Lord about divorce, He replied: "Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and declared, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one'? Thus, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, let no man separate what God has joined" (Mt 19:3-6).

Given this teaching, we as Catholics believe that when a baptized Christian man freely marries a baptized Christian woman, they form an indissoluble, sacramental bond. This union is evidenced in the vows they exchange: "I take you to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part" (Rite of Marriage). These vows express a love that is permanent, exclusive, faithful, self-giving and life-giving. In the Catholic understanding, marriage is a Sacrament.

Sadly, though, divorce does occur. The state court considers marriage as a contract, not as a sacrament. The divorce decree establishes the rights of both parties, and now legally, the former spouses can marry again civilly. However, in the eyes of God and the Church, an indissoluble sacramental marriage is presumed to have occurred: "Marriage enjoys the favor of the law; consequently, when a doubt exists, the validity of a marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven" (Code of Canon Law, No. 1060). One cannot deny that the couple exchanged those vows before God, their family and their friends, and indeed the whole Church, and those witnesses presume the vows were freely exchanged and sincere , "until death do us part." Therefore, no one can just pretend that the marriage never took place and remarry.

The Church sincerely tries to help those individuals who have suffered the tragedy of divorce as well as to hold true to the teachings of our Lord. A person who is divorced may petition the Church to review the marriage and investigate whether a full, free-willed consent (as much as any person can give) was exchanged at the time of the wedding. The Code of Canon Law specifies that "matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman, through an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept each other to establish marriage" (No. 1057.2)

If the Church determines that a defect in the consent existed at the time of the marriage, then a Declaration of Nullity (an annulment) would be granted. Such a declaration proclaims that one or both parties did not (or could not), give a full, free-willed consent, and therefore no indissoluble, sacramental bond was established. Yes, a ceremony took place, but no sacrament occurred.

Since divorce involves a civil decree by the state and is not recognized by the Church, a divorced person remains in good standing and may receive the sacraments. However, if a divorced person remarries without a Declaration of Nullity, then strictly speaking, an act of adultery is committed; since the first marriage still is presumed valid, remarriage without an annulment places the person in a state of mortal sin. Therefore, the Church encourages a divorced person who may think he may one day remarry to see his parish priest and pursue the annulment process.

The truth is that civil divorce and a church annulment are two vastly different things. A divorce is concerned with the legal realities of marriage only; an annulment is concerned with the religious and spiritual element—the sacrament of marriage. A divorce focuses on the end of a marriage; an annulment looks at the beginning, the very moment the couple said "I do." A divorce looks at marriage in civil law; an annulment looks at marriage from the perspective of the Gospel and of Church doctrine. It is a myth that an annulment is "Divorce, Catholic style."

Though i am hesitant to utterly disallow any extreme circumstances as possibly allowing grounds for annulment, yet in the Bible, although marriage as a commitment and social contract was generally understood, once a wife was taken — even foreign wives, or out lust, or even instead of the one contracted for, etc. — and the marriage was consummated, then such were considered to be married, and in no place are consummated marriages “annulled,” meaning they did not exist. Even concubines were wives. (Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3)

And considering the wide scope of possible reasons why a marriage may be annulled, and an est. 400,000 marriages have been annulled since 1970 (http://articles.philly.com/1986-05-08/news/26049605_1_annulments-divorced-catholics-marriage), then how many RCs today are possibly in invalid marriages, even though canon law presumes all marriages are valid until proven invalid.

Rome rules that even if couples are later judged to be such, yet,

“Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven." (Canon 1060, Code of Canon Law; http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3U.HTM)

Note also that " A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated." (Can. 1061 §1)

68% of annulments today [dated] are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. He quotes the statement of one matrimonial judge: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid." (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/28_Annulments.pdf)

Catholic Diocese of Arlington

What are some possible grounds for annulment?

Among the signs that might indicate reasons to investigate for an annulment are:

marriage that excluded at the time of the wedding the right to children, or to a permanent marriage, or to an exclusive commitment.

In addition, there are youthful marriages;

marriages of very short duration;

marriages marked by serious emotional, physical, or substance abuse;

deviant sexual practices;

profound and consistent irresponsibility and lack of commitment;

conditional consent to a marriage;

fraud or deceit to elicit spousal consent;

serious mental illness; or a previous bond of marriage.

- www.arlingtondiocese.org/tribunal/faq.php#Grounds

Rome also considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[McLachlan, P. "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm] , while praying to a women who apparently went thru with a marriage intending to do just that,

► MATRIMONIAL CONSENT and annulment

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;

3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature [all are judgment calls which can see varying verdicts].

List of diriment impediments to marriage

Age.[6] If the man is under 16 years of age, or the woman is under 14 years of age, then their marriage is invalid. This is an ecclesiastical impediment, and so does not apply to a marriage between two non-Catholics. However, note that in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the age limitation applies to the non-Catholic party as well.[7]

Physical capacity for consummation lacking [15]. Per Canon 1084 §3 "Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage." Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates "true semen" into the woman's vagina. (See [1] for details.)

To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[16] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[17]

“In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”

Previous marriage [18]. Previous marriages, whether conducted in the Catholic Church, in another church, or by the State. All previous attempts at marriage by both parties wishing to marry must be declared null prior to a wedding in the Catholic Church, without regard to the religion of the party previously married. Divine, absolute, temporary.

Disparity of cult [19]. A marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is invalid, unless this impediment is dispensed by the local ordinary. Ecclesiastical, relative.

Sacred orders [20]. One of the parties has received sacred orders. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).

Perpetual vow of chastity [21]. One of the parties has made a public perpetual vow of chastity. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).

Abduction [22]. One of the parties, usually the woman, has been abducted with the view of contracting marriage.

Ecclesiastical,[citation needed] temporary.

Crimen [23]. One or both of the parties has brought about the death of a spouse with the view of entering marriage with each other. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).

Consanguinity [24]. The parties are closely related by blood.

Ecclesiastical or divine, depending on the degree of relationship. Relative, permanent.

Affinity [25]. The parties are related by marriage in a prohibited degree. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.

Public propriety [26]. The parties are "related" by notorious concubinage. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.

Adoption [27]. The parties are related by adoption. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.

Spiritual relationship [28]. One of the parties is the godparent of the other. This no longer applies in the Latin Rite, but still applies in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage

And a regards Pauline Privilege, according to http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272,

Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural (not sacramental) marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian. But if a Catholic marries an unbaptized;/non-Christian person is not a sacrament. The church says (based on a passage in Paul) that such a marriage can be dissolved for a grave reason, like if the unbaptized party makes it impossible for the Catholic to practice his faith.

However, they seem to contradict the invalid state of mixed marriage according to Can. 1086, as they state: The Pauline Privilege does not apply when a Christian has married a non-Christian. In those cases, a natural marriage exists and can be dissolved for a just cause, but by what is called the Petrine Privilege rather than by the Pauline Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is so-named because it is reserved to the Holy See, so only Rome can grant the Petrine Privilege.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.