Divorcee remarrying in Catholic church?

Plans_all_plans

I would just like to point out that I did not originally post the above. It was tiff I think.

I agree with your last statement PBS.

coolcait

zaksmum wrote: »

I really don't think there's a chance of annulment and yes, I have shown the advice here to the girl. She was with her ex 7 years and she lost his baby too, so no chance on the refusal to have children thing. She knew what she was doing when she married him so that's out too. She hopes never to have to contact him again so really annulment isn't going to happen.

She will obviously have to accept that the remarriage in a Catholic church isn't either.

She doesn't have to accept anything until she has tried for an annulment.

Which she should do, IMO.

I can see what you're doing with your posts, including this one.

I get it - you're supposedly talking about someone who was deceived by her first husband.

The annulment process will be looking at the husband's attitudes to marriage too.

You have ignored that aspect completely. You have also completely ignored the point that there is no need for the supposed bride-to-be to have any contact with her ex.

Why?

coolcait

As a general point.

If you want to get married, you can get married in a multitude of different places. As long as you meet the criteria set down by the venue.

So, if you want to get married in a religious establishment, you have to meet their criteria.

If you don't meet their criteria, you can still get married - if you want to.

If you only want to get married under certain circumstances, then that is your choice. Which you have to explain to your partner.

If neither of you want to marry under the rites of 'church x', that is your choice.

But the option was there - don't say otherwise.

Mankysteve

zaksmum wrote: »

But some aspects of child abuse did happen in England.

Some pretty much identical things.

tiff

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

tiff wrote: »

Actually, that's one of the reasons I would not date a divorced person. Nor I would be with a person who refuses to marry in the Church. Can't be right person if he can't give me that...

I suppose thats the difference between us, for me the person would be first, it does not matter to me if someone has been married before.

The point is mute as I've been married 14 years and its the first and only marriage for both of us!

margaretclare

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

tiff wrote: »

Actually, that's one of the reasons I would not date a divorced person. Nor I would be with a person who refuses to marry in the Church. Can't be right person if he can't give me that...

I have to smile wryly at this. Following widowhood in 1992 I would have said the same, in fact I did say it. I was a practising Catholic. I even considered becoming a nun, joining an order set up specifically for older women e.g. widows like myself. I went to Lourdes then straight into the pre-novitiate. I lasted precisely a fortnight....

Time passed, and things changed. Out of the blue I found my now DH. At age 62 I fell in love all over again. He was in a terrible abusive marriage and was about to get out to save his health and sanity. I offered him a 'safe haven'. No matter what the parish priest said I could not feel that was wrong. If he had stayed in that marriage he says now, one of them would have been dead and the other serving a life sentence in prison.

It was important for both of us to be married in church. So we joined the Methodist Church and we were married there. It had to be in front of God, and God is in other places than just the Catholic church.

zaksmum

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

tiff wrote: »

Actually, that's one of the reasons I would not date a divorced person. Nor I would be with a person who refuses to marry in the Church. Can't be right person if he can't give me that...

Surely the man himself and his personality is way more important than what he can give you?

zaksmum

margaretclare wrote: »

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

I have to smile wryly at this. Following widowhood in 1992 I would have said the same, in fact I did say it. I was a practising Catholic. I even considered becoming a nun, joining an order set up specifically for older women e.g. widows like myself. I went to Lourdes then straight into the pre-novitiate. I lasted precisely a fortnight....

Time passed, and things changed. Out of the blue I found my now DH. At age 62 I fell in love all over again. He was in a terrible abusive marriage and was about to get out to save his health and sanity. I offered him a 'safe haven'. No matter what the parish priest said I could not feel that was wrong. If he had stayed in that marriage he says now, one of them would have been dead and the other serving a life sentence in prison.

It was important for both of us to be married in church. So we joined the Methodist Church and we were married there. It had to be in front of God, and God is in other places than just the Catholic church.

Congratulations margaretclare. I'm genuinely pleased for you.

zaksmum

coolcait wrote: »

She doesn't have to accept anything until she has tried for an annulment.

Which she should do, IMO.

I can see what you're doing with your posts, including this one.

I get it - you're supposedly talking about someone who was deceived by her first husband.

The annulment process will be looking at the husband's attitudes to marriage too.

You have ignored that aspect completely. You have also completely ignored the point that there is no need for the supposed bride-to-be to have any contact with her ex.

Why?

Oh dear. I have not ignored the annulment aspect completely.

I've said several times that there will be NO grounds for annulment.

I've said too that I've shown the advice to the girl and she agrees there are no grounds.

We have both looked into it extensively and annulment just isn't going to happen.

Talking to the priest about it is like asking a cop if it's ok for you to break into someone's house. The answer will be NO!

tiff

For some reason the quote system is quoting the wrong people.