A reader writes:
Are there any official guidelines for divorced people dating before seeking an annulment? I know someone who is doing this and claims that they aren’t "breaking any rules" by doing so. I say that its a mockery of the sacrament, as well as an abuse of the other person.
To answer this question, I need to distinguish two different situations: Some people are in need of what is called a "documentary process" annulment. These are cases where it is so clear that a marriage is null that all that has to be done is to present certain documents that will prove nullity. The most common kind of annulment in this category is when Catholics (who are obliged to observe the Catholic form of marriage) get married outside the Church without a dispensation. Another case would be a priest who jumps ship and attempts marriage without being laicized.
In these cases the nullity of the marriage is so obvious and certain that an extensive investigation is not needed, which is why the documentary process exists. It is possible, even before the annulment is granted, to be certain that one is not married to one’s former spouse.
In such cases, unless there is something else affecting the situation (like being an unlaicized priest), one is entitled to regard oneself as free to marry someone else, and it would not be wrong in principle to investigate prospective marriage partners. (Though it would still be prudent for a variety of reasons to get the documentary process annulment first.)
Most annulment cases, though, are not documentary process ones. They require an extensive, formal investigation, and they are known as "ordinary process" annulments. In these cases it is not clear prior to investigation that a person is free to marry, which is why the investigation is necessary.
Such marriages are presumed valid, and parties are obliged to regard themselves as still bound to their prior spouse until such time as it is proven that the marriage was null.
So what about dating before the annulment in their case?
"Dating" is a phenomenon that only appears in certain cultures. As a result, one won’t find it explicitly mentioned in the Code of Canon Law, which applies to cultures all over the world.
What one will find is a canon that requires the faithful to act in communion with the Church even in their daily activities:
Can. 209 ยง1.
The
Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to
maintain communion with the Church.
Things that would impair their communion with the Church, such as actions not consistent with Catholic morality, violate this obligation.
Further, the Code provides:
Can. 210
All the
Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote
the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their
own condition.
One thus cannot get around what moral theology would say on the grounds that one isn’t "breaking any rules" that are explicitly found in canon law. Canon law itself requires people to live in a moral manner and strive for holiness.
And even if canon law didn’t say this, the fundamental moral obligations to act in accordance with one’s state of life and to pursue holiness would remain.
Where this question really belongs is thus not in canon law but in moral theology: Is it moral to be dating someone if you are divorced and don’t have an annulment?
Dating is a romantic activity, and it is simply inappropriate to engage in romantic activity with one person when you must regard yourself as married to another. To do so is a violation of the Ninth Commandment (not coveting one’s neighbor’s spouse) that puts one in danger of temptations to violate the Sixth Commandment (not committing adultery).
Those who would need an ordinary process annulment must regard themselves as still married, and so for them dating in this condition has the same moral character as dating someone other than their spouses while still married.
Moral theology would repudiate the actions of a man who knows that he is bound to his wife yet dates another woman, and so it repudiates the actions of a man who must presume that he is bound to his wife yet dates someone else.
In addition, pursuing romance with someone else when you are presumed bound to another is just cruel. It not only tempts you to violate your marital obligations, it tempts another person into an immoral situation as well.
It also messes with both of your feelings and–should and annulment not be forthcoming–will lead you to the very distressing choice between continuing the relationship in violation of your marital obligations or ceasing the relationship and all the pain that will mean.
Bottom line: Dating when you are not clearly free to contract marriage is fundamentally disordered on multiple fronts and just plain wrong.
20
Just to flesh out something Jimmy said above: even if you are 100% certain your marriage is invalid, GET AN ANNULMENT. I don’t know how many people I know who told the priest they’ve never been married before because they figured their courthouse weddings “didn’t count,” thus putting themselves in canonical hot water because courthouse weddings DO count – i.e., they need to be annulled. A different type of annulment, but still an annulment.
This seems a corollary to the argument that “We are just living together as roommates until we get married; we’re not doing anything sinful.”
If only the world did not involve other people who might be scandalized!
If courthouse weddings count, what doesn’t count? How about common law marriages? Or living together as if married? Should the millions of Catholic cohabitators get an annulment before they date someone else?
There is always the internal forum
I think the only type of marriage that doesn’t count (that is one that does not require any form of annullment or declaration of invalidity) is one in which one of the parties is unbaptized at the time of the marriage.
Anyway, thanks Jimmy for this straightforward, honest answer. I know too many people who put themselves in diffifult dating/annullment situations becuase others thought it would hurt their feelings or be too hard to tell them the truth. I particularly like your last sentence.
Bottom line: Dating when you are not clearly free to contract
marriage is fundamentally disordered on multiple fronts and
just plain wrong.
Perhaps if they just “socialize” instead, with a social interest rather than a romantic interest.
True romance is an affair of love, a connection through the Spirit. It is patient, it is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. It does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
Accept no substitute.
In regard to “socializing” rather than “dating,” I don’t think it would be any problem for a person to, say, join a square dance club and go to dances without an annulment.
Robert Schutzius,
“There is always the internal forum”
“…the internal forum…is not a solution for Catholics laboring under canon 915 as a result of the their irregular marital status. As recently as 1994, the highest levels of Church authority have deliberately and unambiguously rejected internal forum solutions in cases of irregular marriage situations (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, letter on Reception of Communion by Divorced and Remarried Catholics, 14 September 1994)”
-Dr. Edward N. Peters, J.D., J.C.D. from 1OO ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS ON ANNULMENTS pages 132-133
The document can be read here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Socializing is good in that a wide circle of friends is, in itself, an aid to romance if the annulment is granted. If the people you socialize with are not, themselves, people whom you would or could date or marry, they may know others who are.
If the marriage is to be “presumed valid, and the parties are obliged to regard themselves as still bound to their prior spouse until such time as it is proven that the marriage was null”, then…
Why would it be appropriate to engage in expanding one’s social circle — even if one doesn’t immediately date — if the intent behind the behavior or desire is future dating? Is that what marriage is, a rehearsal performance for another marriage? A planning of an escape?
One of the characteristics of marriage is its openness to having children. However, when statistics show the vast majority of annulments sought are ultimately granted, I wonder how someone in good conscience can remain open to having children after he/she has filed for annulment knowing the chance (on the whole though not necessarily for them perhaps) is overwhelming that the annulment will be granted.
Another characteristic of marriage is faithfulness. However, as doubt cannot coexist with faith, and doubt is the fodder for feeding the interest in annulment, how is a spouse to remain faithful to a marriage which he/she is actively doubting, if not actively trying to disprove?