Dear Carol:

I am always saddened and amazed that people take their faith and their souls so lightly as to place both in danger.

No woman (and for a woman, no man) is worth risking one's soul to hell. But, that is what your relative has done (twice over) by marrying out of the Church and by leaving the Church. He is living in adultery -- a state of sin.

Even if he decided to be so immature and rebellious as to thumb his nose at God concerning marrying outside of the Church, that did not mean that he had to leave the Church. He could have still attended Mass, he just could not have received communion.

But, I understand. Adam and Eve fled too when they sinned. Children run and hide when they are in trouble.

If the Church really did deny his annulment petition, then that means that he is still married in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of God. If his previous marriage was Sacramental then he should have stayed with his former wife no matter what the problems. If that is not possible for some valid reason, then one can separate from their spouse, but separation is not divorce -- one is still married and thus cannot date and certainly cannot re-marry.

If divorce happens, that is only in civil law. One is still married. An adult accepts the responsibility of this position. An adult accepts the consequences of his actions. No one put a gun to his head to marry his first wife. He got himself into that situation. If that marriage was Sacramental, then a man accepts that even if it requires suffering and sacrifice. A boy runs and sins.

My statement above says, "if the church really did deny his annulment." The reason I say that is from my experience people will characterize their annulment experience inaccurately usually because they do not understand it; or sometimes they outright lie about it.

I have no idea whether such is the case with your relative, but I do know that it is common for people to mis-characterize what the Church did or did not do with their annulment petition.

For example, some people will say the Church denied their petition which may be literally true, but they do not tell the whole story. If a person does not cooperate with the process, fill out the forms completely, etc. the Church cannot grant the annulment. People will often leave out the part that they did not cooperate.

It is also possible that a person did not put forth his case properly or sufficiently to prove that the marriage was not Sacramental. That is usually the fault of the person who helps a person fill out his forms. A priest, deacon, or other designated person is suppose to guide a person through the annulment petition and process. As it is with any adviser, some are good, some are not.

Thus, your relative may be able to re-apply for the annulment, with a more experienced adviser helping him, and may get a different result. I would certainly encourage that if it is possible so that, if the new petition is granted, he can return to the Church with his current marriage blessed and be in good standing.

But, when all is said and done, if the Marriage Tribunal decides that a marriage was Sacramental, then it was Sacramental and the person cannot re-marry. He must live with that fact. To do otherwise is immature, rebellious, and risks one's soul in that he will be living in sin with a new marriage.

There is no justification to be angry with the Church. The Church cannot grant annulments for no reason. An annulment is NOT a Catholic "divorce" as some people seem to think. An annulment is a considered judgment that in the eyes of God the marriage was never Sacramental. This is a discernment that comes from the evidence of the marriage and from the Holy Spirit. If the evidence is not there, or the Holy Spirit does not confirm, then the Church CANNOT grant the annulment.

The Church cannot be held accountable for the actions of people who get themselves into bad marriages. People need to accept responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences.

In terms of your question, should your relative ever want to return to the Church, one of the following would have to be true:

1) he applies for an annulment of the previous marriage and the petition is granted;

2) he is no longer married to his current wife due to death or divorce (and not married to anyone else);

3) he and his current wife agree to live from now on as brother and sister (that means "no sex")

If one of these three conditions are true, then he can approach the Sacrament of Confession to confess his sins of remarriage and leaving the church, and whatever else, and thus be reconciled to God and to His Church. He can then receive Communion and be a Catholic in good standing living a good Catholic life.

Even if none of these things are true, he need not leave the Catholic Church. As mentioned, he can still participate in all things Catholic, including Holy Mass, he just cannot receive the Sacraments.

As to your question about how often the Church denies annulment petitions. The Church denies petitions a lot more than people think. The United States, being the most immature culture in the world, has more annulments granted than any other country, I think, but there are petitions that are denied.

The issue is whether or not the marriage was Sacramental. If it wasn't then the petition is granted, if it was then the petition is denied. The decision is not a matter of personal opinions, it is a matter of God's definition of marriage. The Church must uphold God's definition of marriage and cannot vary from it. The Church has no authority to vary from it.

As for the Protestant mis-interpretation about divorce for adultery all we can do is try to educate the Protestant on the proper interpretation. They will either accept it or not.

The passage in question is Matthew 5:32:

The footnote in the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version says that the Greek word that is here translation "unchastity" and in some translations translated as "adultery"

...appears to refer to marriages that were not legally marriages because they were either within the forbidden laws of consanguinity (Lev. 18:6-16) or contracted with a Gentile. The phrase "except for the cause of unchastity" doe not appear in the parallel passage in Luke 16:18 (see also Matt 19:9 (Mark 10:110=-12), and especially 1 Cor 7:10-11, which shows that the prohibition in unconditional.

The Navarre Bible Commentary adds to this note:

The phrase, "except on the ground of unchastity", should not be taken as indicating an exception to the principle of the absolute indissolubility of marriage which Jesus has just re-established. It is almost certain that the phrase refers to unions accepted as marriage among some pagan peoples, but prohibited as incestuous in the Mosaic Law and in rabbinical tradition. When persons in this position were converted to the true faith, it was not that their union could be dissolved; it was declared that they had never in fact been joined in true marriage. Therefore, this phrase does not go against the indissolubility of marriage, but rather confirms it.

This is an emotional subject because people want to have their cake and eat it too like babies instead of adults.

If people would seek a marriage partner properly to begin with, based upon friendship, mutual respect, and true love, instead of lust, hormones, neediness for companionship, and romantic delusions that ignore warning signs of coming problems there would not be so many bad marriages. If people brought God into their dating lives and then into their married lives, there would not be so many divorces.

The problem is not too many annulments. All those annulments that are granted in this country I am sure are justified. The problem is that the vast majority of these people should not have been married in the first place.

In any event, when we make a mistake, we have to accept responsibility for it and accept the consequences that follow it. That is what a grown-up does. The problem is that we are a nation of people with teenage-level maturity.

God bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary