<p>There are UNOFFICIAL annulments and marriages done at the parish level all the time without benefit of official annulments…yes, it happens, and it happens often, why is that so hard to believe</p>
<p>priests give the sacraments to people all the time that “don’t deserve” it. it is the reality of the Church, and it is one thing that I find refreshing, its an In your face to the vatican, who wants to go back to pre-vatican 2</p>
<p>Annulments DO affect those who aren’t in the church. Look at Sheila Rauch Kennedy. It affected her…bigtime.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom, what are you talking about? As a practicing Catholic of 48 years, whose kids have each spent 14 years in Catholic education, I can tell you that I have NEVER heard of an “unofficial” annulment. That is just nonsense.</p>
<p>There will always be people who view themselves as Catholic and yet don’t follow every rule. There are divorced Catholics who may receive Communion. To the best of my knowledge, the typical parish priest does not quiz everyone at the altar about their status regarding divorce, birth control, attendance at Mass or whatever. Catholics are generally expected to follow the teachings of the Church on their own. </p>
<p>The few cases that have been publicized about the possiblity of people being refused Communion usually seem to relate to politicians who take a very public stand that is contrary to an important Church teaching, i.e. abortion. I’ve never heard of a divorced Catholic being publicly denied any sacrament.</p>
<p>I will admit that I find it frustrating that you continue to make statements about the Church that are downright false. Why do you do that? If you don’t want to practicce the Catholic faith, that’s fine. Why should it bother you that others DO want to practice the faith in accordance with Church teachings? I don’t get it.</p>
<p>Oh come on, dke. She married in the Church, so she was part of it. You can’t get married in the Catholic Church unless you sign a paper agreeing to raise any kids the marriage produces as Catholics. So she was in the Church. Just as my husband is, although he was baptized a Presbyterian, never converted to Catholicism, but married me in a nuptual mass after private pre-Canna sessions in which the priest was convinced his commitment to raising Catholic kids, and supporting their religious training, was sincere.</p>
<p>Sheila Rauch got the same line from Joe Kennedy that I got from my husband. " It’s just Catholic gobbledy-gook. Just sign it!!"…(my husband wanted his parents placated with a priest present)</p>
<p>Dke, she should try that excuse if the IRS audits a joint tax return. The clueless bimbo excuse doesn’t fly.</p>
<p>Neither you nor your husband were truthful in your dealings with the priest or the Church, it would seem. If it means so little to you, why waste another minute talking about it? If it is indeed “gobbledy-gook” in your eyes, then give it a rest and leave those who value the “gobbledy-gook” to follow our Church’s guidelines.</p>
<p>My husband and I were married in the Catholic church. The priest who married us was just a wonderful man. When we had our little pre-marriage meeting, (not the required pre-marriage classes that we had already attended), he asked my to promise to raise our children as Christians, as I was not Catholic at the time. My husband and I would have not gone through with the Catholic wedding had I been made to promise to raise our children as Catholics. Not that I had anything against the Catholic church, and I did go on to become Catholic after our fist son was born, it’s just that we were/are pretty stubborn, and would not have been comfortable making that kind of commitment early in our marriage pre-children. My husband, a lifelong Catholic, and I, a seven year Catholic decided that the Lutheran church met our spiritual needs more closely, and are now Lutherans. However, had we not encountered the wonderful priests in the Catholic church along the way, that we did, I would have never considered becoming Catholic or having our children baptized in the church. I do feel that it is my right to say that I’m not Catholic, regardless of the church’s view on the subject.</p>
<p>I am not making this up, please, do you think the Church is perfect, do you think everyone that take communion is “worthy” ie no birthcontrol?</p>
<p>and if you don’t think marriages have taken place in a Catholic Church between couple where one has NOT gotten an official annulment, you are naive</p>
<p>nevermind, sjmom, your church is infalable</p>
<p>We’re all sinners, CGM. That’s why we’re in the pew.</p>
<p>I’m sure there are sloppy paperwork examples of Catholic sacraments being conducted without all the proper ducks lined up in a row. For example, my friend was never asked to provide her Confirmation Certificate, and as she had not been confirmed, this would have been added to the list of necessary preparations. It slipped through. They’re happily married. </p>
<p>Priests are not private investigators. If you deliberately mislead him, or like my friend, neglect to bring up an issue, he may sign off on a marriage when the couple is actually not cleared in the eyes of the Church. I think it’s a pretty slimely thing to do intentionally.</p>
<p>Amen, StickerShock.</p>
<p>CGM, I have no idea about the state of anyone’s soul but my own when I go up for Communion. It is not for me to judge the worthiness of anyone else.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom, why don’t you try re-reading post #123 again. I clearly stated that not every Catholic follows every rule. I am neither naive nor ignorant regarding Church teachings and practices. What I object to is that you continue to post incorrect information about the Catholic faith. I don’t post regarding Judaism or Islam – I don’t know enough about those faiths to offer anything intelligent. Why do you keep posting about Catholicism, when you are clearly wrong much of the time?</p>
<p>I signed that paper for same reason Sheila did…nothing clueless or bimbo-esque about it. We were both marrying loosely Catholic men whose parents wanted it done “the Catholic way”. Having an annulment done on you against your will like Sheila had done to her is unconscionable. She never thought the man she was about to marry would do something like that to her, I’m sure.</p>
<p>Actually, dke, the spouse seeking the annulment does not have to have consent from his or her spouse. So annulments can go through against the will of a spouse. Again, the children are not illigitimate, despite the misinformation that Rauch tried to spread around. Often the spouse who does not want an annulment is exhibiting more of the control issues and/or pshchological problems that make the marriage null in the Church’s eyes. The spouse does have to be contacted, though, and given an opportunity to contribute information. </p>
<p>While the Kenndy clan is a group of dirtbags in my eyes, I have no idea if the marriage deserves to be annulled. Neither do you, as you don’t know all the facts. But the idea that a woman marrying into the Kennedy clan is claiming she never thought there would be political responsibilities is just too funny! Or the idea that a Kennedy would be honorable? Even funnier.</p>
<p>Dke, I take any contract or document that I sign very, very seriously. My word is my bond and all that…I don’t see why you seem mad at the Church for expecting honesty from those wishing to recieve a sacrament. Would you sign your name to a check if you knew your account didn’t have sufficient funds? Would you sign your income tax return if you knew hubby had fudged the numbers? I wouldn’t.</p>
<p>SS, it wasn’t my church. I wanted very little to do with it at the time. I did what I had to do to make the in-laws happy. Period. If it meant signing my name to some silly paper so be it. As far as Sheila Rauch is concerned, the idea of something being done to a woman against her will isn’t something savory to me in the least whether its an annullment, or anything else for that matter.</p>
<p>“Actually, dke, the spouse seeking the annulment does not have to have consent from his or her spouse. So annulments can go through against the will of a spouse.”</p>
<p>As can a civil divorce - they are granted all the time when one party objects and sometimes without the knowledge of one of the partners.</p>
<p>CGM - in the Screwtape Letters, the devil says that Christians in pews can be distracted by the loud squeaking shoes of a parishioner in a neighboring pew. When you are so upset about the Catholic church, are you upset with God, or upset with the guy whose shoes squeak? What happened that made you so upset with the church? When I go to worship service, I often have to remind myself that I need to look up at God, not sideways at the people I’m worshiping with. Is it really God you’re angry at?</p>
<p>But divorce is different. Its undoing something. Annullment is saying that it never really happenned in the first place.</p>
<p>The Church & the priest didn’t consider it a “silly paper” I’m quite sure. And why would forcing a divorce on a woman against her will be worse than an annulment? There are FAR more implications, ( legal, social, financial, etc.) from a divorce than from an annulment. And what if the woman is seeking the annulment, perhaps because she was essentially forced into the marriage because of a pregnancy? Would you object to the man having something being done to him against his will? I’m sensing some contempt for the Catholic Church in your posts.</p>