Am I a Catholic bastard?
September 4, 2010 5:55 PM
So I talk to my mother this evening on the phone and she was telling me that she went to confession for the first time in 20 years. (I will provide relevant religious background in a moment. Swears.) I had thought since she had reaffirmed her faith nearly a decade ago that she had been doing this, but hey, no big deal. Good for her! Apparently the priest asked if she was married in the eyes of the Church and she replied, yes, my first marriage, but he left me and my second marriage, no, we haven't. The priest proceeds to tell my mother to call his secretary; why? He has said he will "exonerate" (his/mom's words, not mine) her first marriage and consecrate her current one. Again, this changes no feelings towards my mom and my stepdad (who is awesome on toast) by any means, but now I have to ask: Does this mean my mom (and my biological father's) marriage will be dissolved? Does this mean, in essence, theologically, my sister and I will be bastards?
Additional info-dump: my mom was a raised Catholic her entire life. She met my gringo dad, who was Church of Christ, fell in love. They managed to have a Catholic wedding, had me, I was baptized Catholic, but after that, my paternal grandmother put the kibosh on any additional Catholic upbringing. My sister, for example, identifies currently as Baptist, but she was never baptized, has no real identification with my mom's religion, yet supports her. My mom continued to drift from her faith when I was kid after my dad left and didn't really rediscover it until my grandfather died in 2001. She really never left it; there were always rosaries and such like about, but hearing that she could theoretically dissolve the union with my father, I am madly curious as to what that means for me. (Note: I am not religious; I mean, my belief system is pretty huge. It doesn't stop at Catholicism.)
Additional info-dump: my mom was a raised Catholic her entire life. She met my gringo dad, who was Church of Christ, fell in love. They managed to have a Catholic wedding, had me, I was baptized Catholic, but after that, my paternal grandmother put the kibosh on any additional Catholic upbringing. My sister, for example, identifies currently as Baptist, but she was never baptized, has no real identification with my mom's religion, yet supports her. My mom continued to drift from her faith when I was kid after my dad left and didn't really rediscover it until my grandfather died in 2001. She really never left it; there were always rosaries and such like about, but hearing that she could theoretically dissolve the union with my father, I am madly curious as to what that means for me. (Note: I am not religious; I mean, my belief system is pretty huge. It doesn't stop at Catholicism.)
From here:
posted by jweed at 5:58 PM on September 4, 2010
No, it will be annulled and everything will be fine. The Catholic Church does not officially allow divorce or remarriage without permission from the church itself. Most people don't care about that anymore because you don't need to go to the church to get married anymore. It's a completely civil process now.
posted by parmanparman at 6:02 PM on September 4, 2010
posted by parmanparman at 6:02 PM on September 4, 2010
One nice thing about the catholic church is that they don't distinguish between children born in or out of wedlock. They may have in the past (I'm not sure, really) but they don't now.
posted by wayland at 6:10 PM on September 4, 2010
posted by wayland at 6:10 PM on September 4, 2010
As mentioned above, the answers to your questions are no and no. More on the annulment process here.
posted by jquinby at 6:17 PM on September 4, 2010
posted by jquinby at 6:17 PM on September 4, 2010
Fair enough. But it was interesting to posit the question! (At least from my viewpoint.)
posted by Kitteh at 6:50 PM on September 4, 2010
posted by Kitteh at 6:50 PM on September 4, 2010
One nice thing about the catholic church is that they don't distinguish between children born in or out of wedlock.
A funny piece of legal historical trivia:
Back in the day - we're talking seven or eight hundred years ago - England had serfs, villeins, all sorts of people who were, in a sense, slaves. They couldn't be forced to work from dusk to dawn to feed their lords, but they weren't allowed to leave their villages and they owed their lords a certain amount of agricultural produce and/or work. This status was hereditary.
At some stage lawyers decided that this hereditary status could only be passed down to legitimate children - bastards couldn't inherit anything. Losing an inheritance wasn't a problem for villeins, because their lords could actually take away their possessions at will. So lots of villeins went to court to prove that they were illegitimate - and the church helped them do it.
The church used to have much broader laws about marriage. You couldn't marry close relatives whether by blood or by marriage. But sex out of wedlock could be treated as marriage for the purpose of this rule - if your father would admit to having slept with your aunt (before his purported marriage to your mother) his marriage could be invalidated and you were no longer a villein. And because marriages were so easily invalidated, some ecclesiastical courts would just rubber-stamp an application to be declared a bastard. If you lived somewhere without a friendly court you would just go to a friendly one and make your claim there - because if you were a freeman you had a right to change your residence.
Tricks like these were so successful that villeinage had effectively died out by the 1600s. It was simply too easy for villeins to leave their lords, and it was too risky for a lord to risk losing a case against a freeman - the freeman could then sue the lord for libel and false imprisonment and whatever. In theory villeinage is still part of English common law, and it's quite possible that some people reading this are actually villeins (though heaven knows how their lord could be identified, or how it would be proven) , but you should feel comforted that you, at any rate, are certainly a free person and not a villein.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:52 PM on September 4, 2010
A funny piece of legal historical trivia:
Back in the day - we're talking seven or eight hundred years ago - England had serfs, villeins, all sorts of people who were, in a sense, slaves. They couldn't be forced to work from dusk to dawn to feed their lords, but they weren't allowed to leave their villages and they owed their lords a certain amount of agricultural produce and/or work. This status was hereditary.
At some stage lawyers decided that this hereditary status could only be passed down to legitimate children - bastards couldn't inherit anything. Losing an inheritance wasn't a problem for villeins, because their lords could actually take away their possessions at will. So lots of villeins went to court to prove that they were illegitimate - and the church helped them do it.
The church used to have much broader laws about marriage. You couldn't marry close relatives whether by blood or by marriage. But sex out of wedlock could be treated as marriage for the purpose of this rule - if your father would admit to having slept with your aunt (before his purported marriage to your mother) his marriage could be invalidated and you were no longer a villein. And because marriages were so easily invalidated, some ecclesiastical courts would just rubber-stamp an application to be declared a bastard. If you lived somewhere without a friendly court you would just go to a friendly one and make your claim there - because if you were a freeman you had a right to change your residence.
Tricks like these were so successful that villeinage had effectively died out by the 1600s. It was simply too easy for villeins to leave their lords, and it was too risky for a lord to risk losing a case against a freeman - the freeman could then sue the lord for libel and false imprisonment and whatever. In theory villeinage is still part of English common law, and it's quite possible that some people reading this are actually villeins (though heaven knows how their lord could be identified, or how it would be proven) , but you should feel comforted that you, at any rate, are certainly a free person and not a villein.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:52 PM on September 4, 2010
True story: My ex-husband and son's father NEVER claimed any Catholic status...until he wanted to remarry in a Catholic Church (for the building's sake, not the ceremony or faith). I had no idea of his machinations until I received a letter from the Detroit Archdiocese informing me that my marriage (and perhaps subsequent divorce) were INVALID in the eyes of the Catholic Church and therefore annulled.
What?
I called my ex, who mumbled something about me not supposed to get any notice (how they had my address is a wonder, then...), and then told me that as a wee baby he had been baptized a Catholic. He had never since been a Catholic, but this was enough to claim status and therefore marry in the building of his wife's faith.
So, I would tell you that it's all hierarchy and bullshit.
posted by kidelo at 4:46 AM on September 5, 2010
What?
I called my ex, who mumbled something about me not supposed to get any notice (how they had my address is a wonder, then...), and then told me that as a wee baby he had been baptized a Catholic. He had never since been a Catholic, but this was enough to claim status and therefore marry in the building of his wife's faith.
So, I would tell you that it's all hierarchy and bullshit.
posted by kidelo at 4:46 AM on September 5, 2010
I'm not sure it is hierarchy and bullshit, just that like all religions, they have rules and procedures for their sacraments. They take it seriously, even if nobody else does.
I believe the modern interpretation of annullment is simply a religious divorce. Since the church says you can only be married to one person, and since they do not recognize secular divorce, you need to fill out their paperwork too if you want to have a new marriage sanctified by them.
posted by gjc at 5:39 AM on September 5, 2010
I believe the modern interpretation of annullment is simply a religious divorce. Since the church says you can only be married to one person, and since they do not recognize secular divorce, you need to fill out their paperwork too if you want to have a new marriage sanctified by them.
posted by gjc at 5:39 AM on September 5, 2010
He had never since been a Catholic, but this was enough to claim status and therefore marry in the building of his wife's faith.
So, I would tell you that it's all hierarchy and bullshit.
A Catholic marriage is a Sacrament - for Catholics, that runs much deeper than a legal union. A Sacramental marriage can not be dissolved by anything but death. Annulment is not "religious divorce.' It's a determination that there was never a valid Sacramental marriage in the first place. Your ex's baptism as a Catholic and non-practice aren't really related to the annulment. A non-Catholic can enter a Sacramental Catholic marriage. Your marriage to him had to be annulled to clear the way for that. The Church simply verified that there was no Sacramental Union with you. That's the same thing that happened with the OP's mother. The marriage to the OP's father was legitimate - it just wasn't sacramental, which means the OP was free to enter into sacramental marriage with her current husband.
posted by Dojie at 2:48 PM on September 5, 2010
So, I would tell you that it's all hierarchy and bullshit.
A Catholic marriage is a Sacrament - for Catholics, that runs much deeper than a legal union. A Sacramental marriage can not be dissolved by anything but death. Annulment is not "religious divorce.' It's a determination that there was never a valid Sacramental marriage in the first place. Your ex's baptism as a Catholic and non-practice aren't really related to the annulment. A non-Catholic can enter a Sacramental Catholic marriage. Your marriage to him had to be annulled to clear the way for that. The Church simply verified that there was no Sacramental Union with you. That's the same thing that happened with the OP's mother. The marriage to the OP's father was legitimate - it just wasn't sacramental, which means the OP was free to enter into sacramental marriage with her current husband.
posted by Dojie at 2:48 PM on September 5, 2010
For the record, the Catholic Church will require a first marriage be annulled for that party to marry again in the Catholic Church. It will not matter whether that party is Catholic, or whether the first marriage was conducted in a Catholic Church. That is, the Catholic Church recognises marriages celebrated in other Churches (not so sure about non-church weddings, but probably), and therefore needs to see that, in its eyes, people who are married in the Catholic Church are free to do so. I believe this comes from the Church's position that it is the couple who confer the sacrament on each other, and the Minister/Priest merely 'officiates'.
Kidelo, you should have been contacted about the annulment. Here in Australia, I was told that unless there were some drastic reasons why not, my ex would be informed and asked if she wished to be involved.
posted by GeeEmm at 7:45 PM on September 5, 2010
Kidelo, you should have been contacted about the annulment. Here in Australia, I was told that unless there were some drastic reasons why not, my ex would be informed and asked if she wished to be involved.
posted by GeeEmm at 7:45 PM on September 5, 2010
« Older How do we proceed with family problems? | Can Mbox 2 and Pro Tools LE 7.0 work on Windows 7... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.