Absolutely - but there’s a difference between “not committing adultery” and “it’s OK , and there’s nothing to confess”. If nothing else, presumably he was not impotent when they got married.
Either your friend misunderstood or she was given bad advice. The RC Church has no issue with people obtaining a civil divorce and even acknowledges it may be necessary when a marriage cannot be saved. There are no restrictions placed on someone who is legally divorced other than they cannot remarry. A legal divorce without an annulment is almost like a formal separation from the RC point of view - you don’t live together , there has been some sort of agreement regarding finances/property/custody of children but you are still married.
This has always been my understanding as well. The RCC views a divorce is a civil procedure to handle how a married couple who no longer live together handle the legal aspects in separation. It does not affect the marriage itself.
I’m also unclear why the second husband’s impotence matters. If the first husband was impotent at the time of the marriage, that would be grounds for annulment, since the marriage could not have been consummated. But if the second marriage was consummated, even once, that constitutes adultery.
Well, I’m happy to be corrected on that, not being Catholic myself, although she certainly went through the annulment process. On reflection, I also wouldn’t dismiss the idea that my friend was making maximum drama out of the situation by pursuing an annulment - something she loves dearly.
If you get divorced and want to stay in the RCC, and think you have grounds for annulment, then there’s no reason not to get one - it’s probably easier to get one right away while you’re still in touch with your ex, and if you do think you ever want to remarry it takes out the stress of wondering if it will be approved.
I had assumed that the second husband had always been impotent or, at least, that the second marriage had never been consummated. Presumably, if you had been committing adultery, you have something to confess – even if you stopped (whether voluntarily or not).
I would be curious about church doctrine for a divorced person who entered a celibate civil marriage.
In my understanding, the marriage has to be never consummated in order for any of that to kick in. His performance in the present is not of interest unless he was always like that. The point is that children must be a possibility (and, given the example of Abraham and Sarah, among others, I don’t think the Catholics allow for such things as marrying after menopause).
That rule has gotten awfully lax in recent decades, by the way. In fact, in the West anyway, there has been a (much decried) slovening all around, as the RCC may have all the rules but has no real means to enforce them as in the past.
I’m not sure what you mean - Catholics can marry at any age, even post-menopausal. As long as they can and do consummate the marriage (only one time required), and they don’t do anything to prevent pregnancy, they’re in the clear. There’s no requirement to be fertile - a young woman who had a hysterectomy for medical reasons is allowed to marry, even though pregnancy is impossible.
In Catholic Church speak, pregnancy must be “possible” - but “possible” there doesn’t mean exactly what it does in everyday life. It means penis-in-vagina sex without any steps being taken to prevent pregnancy. So hysterectomy, menopause, low or no sperm production - none of those make pregnancy “impossible” by that definition.
The impression I get is that it’s supposed to be on your own conscience. At my (very religious) MILs funeral, the (very officious) priest invited those who were in a state of grace to come up for communion. My wife, who hasn’t been to confession since she refused to regard her sexual orientation as a sin, went up anyway, for her mother’s sake. The priest just gave her snake eyes.
Those rules are about showing receptivity to God’s will. The material circumstances are not nearly as important as one’s intentions. Also, the Holy Mother Church is philosophically opposed to adapting to modern mores and medical practices. Not excusing, just explaining.
So do I - but I think on some level it’s the same as “you’ll still go to hell for eating meat on some random Friday before the rules changed - it just won’t be for eating meat. It will be for breaking the rule”
My advice to the OP: just pick a nice friendly parish and start attending regularly. I doubt if anyone will question your bonafides if you become a visible, contributing churchgoer. I promise you, God doesn’t care one way or the other. IMHO the RCC is in no position to be picky.
The Priest then questions them about their freedom of choice, fidelity to each other, and the acceptance and upbringing of children, and each responds separately.
(Name) and (Name), have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely and wholeheartedly? The bridegroom and bride each say: I have.
Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live? The bridegroom and bride each say: I am.
The following question may be omitted if circumstances suggest this, for example, if the couple is advanced in years.
Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church? The bridegroom and bride each say: I am.
Note that a) the question is whether the couple will accept children, and b) it can be omitted if the priest/officiant is convinced the couple can’t have children (and I guess, if he believes the question would be embarrassing.)
