And incidentally, the divorce/annulment issue was what sealed my mother’s breach with the church. Her and my dad divorced about five years ago, after almost 30 years together. They were married young (and pregnant) and had fallen out of romantic love long before, but they had some issues that they couldn’t get past and decided to split up. Once Mom started dating again, she looked into an annulment, but the priest told her flat out (and in a decidedly non-tactful way) that if she did, the church would consider her to have never married and that my sisters and I would be illegitimate in the eyes of the church. She wasn’t willing to say that her marriage (and they’re still good friends) never happened and she certainly wasn’t about to say that her children are illegitimate (she’s very old school on the whole marriage, then kids question, and in fact, I was exactly the reason they got married in the first place). She got pissed and hasn’t been back to mass, other than the odd wedding or funeral, since. It makes her incredibly sad, though, to not be in the church anymore.

Robert, thank you. I didn’t feel judged harshly. I have never claimed that actions shouldn’t have consequences. My divorces and remarriages are real events, and though God’s forgiveness has wiped clean the slate, that doesn’t change the fact that they really happened. And the Church, in its ancient wisdom, decrees that communion is only for those whose circumstances are less, uh, messy than my own. I can disagree with that, even lament that — and accept that all at the same time.

I personally don’t live up to church teaching in any number of areas of life, but (luck again) they aren’t public areas of life. So I should have acknowledged that, hey, whited sepulchre, right here.

Possibly because if the Church easily recognized divorce, it would include people like Hugo who have divorced three times. Which wouldn’t exactly be a testimonial to the Church’s marital teachings.

The difficulty with taking things seriously is that you have to, well, take them seriously. If we have a teaching about marriage and we actually believe it, then people who won’t or can’t live that teaching can’t be part of the community. Hugo couldn’t or wouldn’t live the teaching; so he’s out. We have to decide which is more important: inclusiveness, or fidelity to what we believe is the truth. Catholics choose fidelity on this one.

:-)

As you know, I was raised Catholic, from Baptism to Confirmation (I even received my Sacrament of Confirmation from the infamous Cardinal Roger Mahony in 2003.) I have attended church services at other places, like Paznaz, and a couple of other Protestant churches in the area. But in my heart, I will always be a Catholic. It seems to me that you, too, might still be a Catholic were it not for the Church’s stauch views on divorce. I don’t understand why the Church is so reluctant to even recognize divorce. Thier rules on it motivate a lot of Catholics to stay in abusive relationships in order to avoid shame from the church, and therefore God. But, like you say, every church has it’s issues.

You’re right that I could have stayed chaste and divorced, too, but that wasn’t an option. I have to say, on a gut level, I loathe annulments — just like I loathe mulligans in golf.

It’s only with the remarriage that the bar came, and even then such things are not absolute.

In my case, the marriage with Wife number 1 came while we were both non-believers, and she was unbaptized; when she became a believer she never baptized anyway, and was vehemently anti-catholic, coming from a rather vitriolic anti-”papist” masonic family.

She screwed me around on an annulment for a long time. Finally I was told by a priest of something called “The Internal Forum.”

Basically stated, since I was sure of the truth, that I was entitled to a decree of nullity due to Petrine Privilege - BUT JUST COULD NOT PROVE IT - so long as I resolved not to cause scandal by flouting the whole divorced and remarried situation, I could receive communion.

(Not married, won’t be, so not an issue now. Still.)

Thing is, this isn’t widely advertised - and is even actively discouraged - because it is subject to a wide range of abuse. You have to be 100%, dead, no holds barred, no subjective interpretation positively sure before you are entitled to this. Not merely biblically, but by canon law and the magisterium. You have no wiggle room. And it is on your honor.

So if you are 100% certain, according to canon law, that your first marriage was not valid or sacramental in nature - receive away, keeping in mind not to cause scandal. (Because subsequent ones, since you lacked proper dispensation and form, are invalid on their face.)