A reader writes:
My friend is an awesome convert, and is in RCIA, but being denied the rites and Sacrament because he is divored without an annulment. He is not remarried or engaged or even in a relationship. He is eligible for RCIA, is he not? How can I prove this to the gal who runs the program? She denied him the rite of election today.
First, that’s horrible. Your friend may be devastated by this, and you should do all in your power to console him and to set this straight.
Assuming that the RCIA director is clear on the fact that your friend is not married or planning to marry in the near future (you should verify that she knows this), the most expedient way to do set things straight may be to talk to the pastor of the parish, who presumably is better informed on this point than the RCIA director.
The Church makes no requirement that people who are divorced get an annulment before they can join the Church. That is nowhere in canon law, and the burden of proof is on the lady to show where it is. (It ain’t there.)
The reason that people need annulments after divorce is to prove that they are free to remarry, not to prove that they can join the Church. As long as your friend is not remarried (or engaged or in a relationship) then he has no pressing need for an annulment.
It may be advisable for him to pursue one in case he wants to remarry in the future, but the fact is that annulments are NOT a prerequisite for joining the Church. All kinds of divorced people join the Church without annulments. You only need one if you want to remarry.
I mean: Suppose that there is a divorced person who’s marriage to his wife is valid, so that he is bound to her and not free to marry someone else. Okay, fine. He can’t marry anyone else. But that has NOTHING to do with whether he can join the Church.
God is not in the business of keeping people out of his Church just because they are divorced. There can be very good reasons why a civil divorce may be necessary–even when the marriage is valid–and the Church acknowledges this (cf. CCC 2383).
Now, if it becomes necessary to get into the canonical details of this case (which it shouldn’t be if you talk to the pastor), here is where to start:
Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.
§2. Pastors of souls and other members of the Christian faithful, according to their respective ecclesiastical function, have the duty to take care that those who seek the sacraments are prepared to receive them by proper evangelization and catechetical instruction, attentive to the norms issued by competent authority.
The clauses in blue indicate that if your friend is to be denied the sacraments of initiation on the grounds that he lacks an annulment that they’re going to have to cough up a law that prohibits such persons from receiving them, and there ain’t on such law.
You’ll also note that section 2 of this canon mentions precisely NOTHING about needing an annulment.
Further,
Can. 18 Laws which
establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an
exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.
Here the blue text tells us that in order to bar your friend from exercising his right to freely embrace the Catholic faith, they’re going to have to come up with a law that unambiguously denies him the exercise of that right because of his lack of an annulment. The law has to be clearly do this in order to meet the strict interpretation test, so no trying to bend ambiguous clauses to come up with the solution the RCIA director wants.
Now let’s suppose that your friend is not baptized. What are the requirements of baptism for adults?
Can. 864 Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is capable of baptism.
Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.
Ain’t nothing in there about an annulment if you’re divorced and not remarried.
Okay, so suppose your friend is already baptized and needs to be confirmed? What are the requirements for that?
Can. 889 §1. Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation.
§2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.
Again: Nothing about nedding an annulment if you’re divorced and not remarried.
The burden is therefore entirely on the RCIA director to cough up a law that says people are to be barred from being initiated into the Church for this reason–and it has to be a clear law whose requirements stand up to strict interpretation.
Rather than hash all that out with her, though, the simplest thing is likely to be to talk to the pastor.
Please reassure your friend–who may well be devastated by this turn of events–that the Church cares for him and wants to facilitate his joining it and that the woman who denied him rite of election on these grounds is an idiot.
She is, however, an idiot who is trying to do what is right as she understands it, and that’s a good thing, so he should try to understand that as he prays for her to get smartened up.
20
I have a question related to this:
I divorced my first spouse (married in civil ceremony) in 1988 and was married to my current wife, a Catholic, in 1997. We are currently living as “brother and sister”, awaiting a decision on an annulment for my former marriage so that we can convalidate our marriage. (My first spouse was never baptised, therefore the Petrine Priveledge is being invoked….).
I am currently in RCIA, and was told by one of the RCIA directors that I wouldn’t be able to enter the church at the Easter Vigil UNLESS a postive decision regarding my annulment arrives from the Vatican before Easter.
Is this true? Or can I still enter the church at Easter regardless of the status of my annulment?
Thanks..
A very misinformed and old-church way of dealing with a divorced-but-not-remarried Catholic-to-be. But it is true that the strict approach would insist a divorced and remarried Catholic-to-be await the final word on a declaration of nullity–unless the baptism option is in play.
People are often given the difficult choice of initiation into the Church or separation from spouse. Most pastors err on the side of leniency when they can. This is one area in which church practice could and probably should be altered.
Prairiedog, kudos to you for having the moral integrity to make such a courageous (and morally necessary) choice. (Todd, I don’t know what you’re talking about, or even what you mean by “old church.” Hadn’t heard there was a new one.)
I could be wrong, Prairiedog (and Jimmy or Ed, please correct me if I am), but it seems to me that your RCIA director may be wrong. As long as you’re living as brother and sister, then you are not living in sin, and there should be no obstacle to your receiving the sacraments.
After all, had you been Catholic to begin with and gotten remarried outside the Church and were now trying to get your marital status regularized, you would be allowed to receive the sacraments during this time of a pending decision as long as you were living together as brother and sister.
Thus, barring some particular canonical obstacle I don’t know about pertaining specifically to the reception of non-Catholics into the Church, I can’t see why you should be barred from being admitted to the sacraments come Easter vigil, decision or no decision.
Now, if you are received into the Church and the finding is that the previous marriage was valid, that obviously puts you in a difficult position, but no more so than if you delayed entrance into the Church. The fact is, if your current marriage isn’t valid then it isn’t valid, and not becoming Catholic isn’t going to change that.
If your intention were to resume marital relations after the decision regardless what the decision is, then that would obviously be a problem. But if your intention is to do the right thing no matter what, then I don’t see the difficulty about receiving you into the Church. Indeed, you could have greater need of the grace of the sacraments given a finding of validity for the previous marriage than otherwise.
Okay, I’ve never left a post on your blog Jimmy, but here goes. I’m an Associate Minister for a non-denominational church, currently attending RCIA, going through the anullment process along with my wife who is going through it as well. Our diocese is telling our parish that my anullment is “easier” (for lack of better word) than my wife’s because I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant, and did not request to marry outside the church when I married in the Protestant church. I wasn’t a practicing Catholic, in fact, far from it! On the other hand, my current wife has always been Protestant, was baptized protestant, married in the protestant church etc. Her anullment is taking longer. If I’m reading the above post right, if we chose to live as “brother and sister” as we awaited the decision (which doesn’t seem like it will arrive before the Easter Vigil) then we can be received into the Church and recieve the Holy Sacrament? I suppose I’m a little confused. Hope I’m making sense…it’s late! Sorry!
Hi , great post. I, too, am divorced and not remarried. I’m a “revert” so none of this came up for me. But I do have a question. If a divorced Catholic is living a chaste single life and has no plans to marry, is there a benefit to obtaining an annulment? I have never seen this addressed anywhere. Thank you Jimmy and all. This is an awesome blog.
If a divorced Catholic is living a chaste single life and has no plans to marry, is there a benefit to obtaining an annulment?
You never know. Not only if you may want to remarry, but if you want want to take vows.
Consider that the evidence may vanish over time. If the spouse would be willing to admit to simulation of consent, such as positively refusing to have children, the annulment may be feasible now — but the spouse might be in an auto accident in three years.
Dow, the problem with remarriage is that it is, in Jesus’s words, adultery.
If you are not having sexual intercourse, you are not committing adultery.
I was told that my fiance, who is currently going through the RCIA process, cannot be baptised until I begin the annulment process for my former marriage in the church. We will be married in about 2 months, he will not be baptised until at least 2007. He has never been married, is this correct?
Recently divorced abd about to undertake RCIA. My wife and I were not Catholic. We were never members nor were we married in a Catholic Ceremony. Based on what I have read here, I will need an annulment if and when I decide to marry a Catholic woman in the Catholic Church. The questions is, how difficult is this process?
I am divorced and currently going through rcia. I am not remarried but I am pregnant. The director of rcia is not sure if I will be able to recieve confirmation.(I was baptized and recieved communion as a child) Do I need an annulment to recieve confirmation? My former spouse was muslim and lied to me prior to the marrige, he told me he had a green card when he was really an illegal alien with a wife and children in his country. He has since disapeard and I have no idea where he is or how to cantact him. Can I get an annulment without being able to locate him to notify him of the procedings?
Sue…
It is best to contact the Priest that is assisting you through the annulment process. They really are the best ones to guide you and answer your questions
Here is my question, as I am getting several different answers depending on who you ask, so I hope you can help.
I am not a Catholic, my fiance is. I am divorced. Do I have to get an annulment BEFORE we get married? I understand getting an annulment AFTER you become a catholic but not before, and also my previous marriage was a civil ceremony, not preformed by a pastor or priest, so isn’t that marriage invalid anyway?
Many thanks!
You can contract a valid marriage without being a Catholic.
Once you have contracted a valid marriage, you are bound by it.
Civil ceremonies are invalid for Catholics because they are bound by canon law to have a religious ceremony; non-Catholics can contract a valid marriage in a civil ceremony.
I am getting ready to start RCIA classes this fall and according to my director I need to get an annulment from my first marriage.
My current situation is
I am not Baptized, In college I got Married by a justice of the peace and then divorced. I am now remarried approx ten years and I want to become catholic. My current wife is a Methodist Baptized, Non practicing catholic, who also has a previous marriage, What all do we need to do for me to get Baptized Catholic.
From all the comments here this is clear as mud.
1. Do you have to have an anullment if you were married civilly.
yes or no
2. Do you have to have an anullment if you were married in a protestant church.
yes or no
1. Depends
2. Depends
More information is required before those questions can be answered.
Here’s one for you! I am a Lutheran, wanting to become a Catholic. I was previously married but it was a horrid situation that even my priest thinks was horrendous. I am remarried to a wonderful man, but we have never had sex because I have had cancer before we even met and it is impossible for us. He knew that and loved me anyway. He has never been baptised. We took the lessons and completed them only to be told that I could not be confirmed and he could not be baptised and confirmed in the Church because I needed an annulment. Our marriage is one of faith, love and friendship, we know it can never be consumated in the regular way, but at some point would like it to be blessed in the Church because we truly love each other. We’ve been together 28 years, so this is no fly by night marriage. Do we need an annulment of that horrible marriage to be allowed to take the sacraments until we can get an annulment? Thank you and I really need your help. I’m currently on Chemo and don’t want to die without ever receiving ‘real’ Communion.
Sonia,
If you and your husband are living as brother and sister with respect to conjugal union, I see no obstacle to your reception into the Church and admission to the sacraments without a finding of nullity for your first marriage. Your first marriage would need to be found null before your current union can be recognized in the Church, but in the case of a Josephite union this will not be an obstacle to your receiving the sacraments. Good luck and God bless.
I agree that the ability to receive communion might not be impeded in this case, although it gets somewhat complicated depending upon how the current marriage is understood – it, obviously, is not sacramental, since the husband is not baptized (if he became baptized, later, this might, then, require an annulment of the previous marriage for any validation of the current marriage within the Church). As no consummation of the current marriage has ever been attempted, the sin of adultery does not seem to be in play in a physical sense, although the mental sin of lust and other more remote physical acts might have to be dealt with in the confessional, as the first marriage is presumed valid, sans a declaration of nullity.
Here is where a more experienced view than mine might be required (Ed Peters, if you read this, could you comment?). Receiving the sacrament of communion might be possible (check with an experience priest or canon lawyer), but I don’t know about the possibility of a sacramental marriage, since an antecedent situation of impotency exists due to the cancer, if I understand the situation, correctly (if sex is possible, just merely imprudent, then this is another story). A Josephite marriage assumes the possibility of consummation at the time of the marriage, since, from what I understand, one exchanges the rights to the marital act with the spouse and if it antecedently impossible, then one would be pledging something that one does not have the ability to give. Thus, the marriage might have to stay merely legal, not sacramental (again, see a priest or canon lawyer – I could be way off, here).
Living chastely, as brother and sister, should not, however, put an obstacle in the way for receiving communion (any sins being dealt with, as needed).
It is very humbling and frightening to be making remarks about another person’s life, especially one you do not know personally. My intention, here, is to be helpful, but always, in these sorts of situation, where you receive comments from non-experts, take the advice very cautiously. At least, these issues can be brought up and resolved, just for peace of mind, since, as I say, I could be way off base and do not mean to make things more difficult or create anxiety where no extra is needed or useful.
So, simple answer – find an experience priest whom you trust, lay out the matter before him, ask him to investigate with the appropriate experts (canonist, bishop). Hopefully, you will be able to receive communion in a very short period. The other matters will be dealt with as is best.
The Chicken