vee Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 [quote]Two other women--both non-annulment divorcees--were accepted as grey-cord Lay Cloisterites[/quote] Whats a non annulment divorcee? Someone who had a civil marriage and civil divorce but never contracted a Catholic marriage? This kind of thing prevents people from being accepted into religious life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) [quote name='vee8' date='08 March 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1268033513' post='2068677'] Whats a non annulment divorcee? Someone who had a civil marriage and civil divorce but never contracted a Catholic marriage? This kind of thing prevents people from being accepted into religious life? [/quote] It could indeed mean someone who married in a civil ceremony outside The Church and was susequently divorced - this would be an impediment to canonical religious life as I understand it. The same applies for a Catholic women who perhaps married in a non Catholic religious ceremony and then subsequently divorced. I am unsure, but in the previous two examples, I think that it means that the Catholic party(ies) has placed themselves outside of The Church. Of course, they can reconcile to The Church. Unsure here, but they might be able to apply for annulment and whether if they can and it is granted, I dont know whether they are then free to enter religious life. I don't know. Unsure again, but since The Church does not recognize divorce and if the marriage is not annuled, the parties would be still married in the eyes of The Church, though divorced. "Non annulment divorcee" may also mean a person married in The Church and subsequently divorced and not eligible for annulment This also would be an impediment to canonical religious life as The Church regards the person as still married. The reason The Church asks that the parties be divorced prior to applying for any annulment is so that society regards them as not married. As I understand it, again. I think most canonical religious orders will consider a divorced person with annulment and take personal matters into account - some however will not. Before making private vows I needed to apply for annulment (granted) to enable me to be completely free to make private vows to the evangelical counsels of Chastity, Poverty and Obedience. My director/confessor (theologian) advised this at the time and a long and painful process it was (annulment process). I had to write my life story - twice. The first did not contain enough detail I was told. My parents and my ex husband gave evidence to the Tribunal. The annulment was granted because of the personal attitude of my ex husband at the time of our marriage and the astounding thing to me was is that he was quite honest about it to the Tribunal he says. I was not aware of this attitude at the time we married - he made me aware of it after he almost literally forced me out of our marital home and then divorced me 12 months later. Under Australian law it constituted "desertion and irreconcilable differences" (the terms he stated when applying for divorce) after 12 months living separately (tho he would not consider reconciliation) and I came home from work one day to find out from my mail I was now divorced. And first I knew that he planned to divorce me. I do recall a painful discussion with him about finances and custody of our children if it came to divorce and my divorce papers stated re finances and custody "private agreement". We were in business at the time and I had quite a few papers to be signed as I signed the business over to him since he promised to care financially for our children. At the time I was on and off ill and more often unwell than well. That is, confused. As it was explained to me, since I had been married in The Church I would not be free to make private vows to the evangelical counsels as The Church would consider me still married. The advice that my annulment was granted did contain these words "doubtless you will be happy to know that you are now free of the bonds of marriage" (I just looked up the letter to check the wording). I had mixed feelings in truth - I think I would have been happier at that time if my marriage had persevered especially for the sake of my two sons - but for me also. Not to be! and the task was to move on in life and the annulment enabled me to do this in freedom insofar as The Church was concerned. I was free to remarry, make private vows to the evangelical counsels or to enter religious life providing I was accepted. After the annulment and in my early forties I did enter an enclosed contemplative community and left of my own accord to continue on my way under private vows. My ex husband and I now retain a happy friendship and I rather like his new wife. In fact a couple of years ago we all got together and she cooked us Christmas lunch - not too many divorced people could do this I dont think. Others may be more helpful - the above is all my understanding............Blessings this Lent - Barb E&OE We used to put on the bottom of business letters E&OE meaning "all errors and omissions excepted" - in other words I may stand corrected in some places in my post above. Edited March 8, 2010 by BarbaraTherese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnavarro61 Posted March 8, 2010 Author Share Posted March 8, 2010 [quote name='SRLAUREL' date='08 March 2010 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1268010406' post='2068426'] If Cloister Outreach is to do good or is of God, it cannot be founded on or perpetuated by means of untruths; thus if the person in question wants to build on truth I think she retains the chance to do that. [/quote] i agree with sister laurel. we must pray for Gemma as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbTherese Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) [quote name='tnavarro61' date='08 March 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1268037252' post='2068693'] i agree with sister laurel. we must pray for Gemma as well. [/quote] We are all sinners - our sins differ only in kind and we all need prayer to stay on the straight and narrow from which we all stray to some degree or other. Our failures probably however will not be public in cyberspace. I shudder dreadfully at the thought of my failures finding their way to cyberspace. Unless we hear from Gemma there is no way of knowing if some misunderstanding could possibly have developed somehow. Although I agree that if Gemma has been misleading (not saying deliberately) it is an opportunity to sort it all out for her own personal benefit and reputation and for the good name and reputation of her project or projects. My assessment. Everything we post into these Catholic Discussion Sites is free to air as it were in cyberspace internationally available to all. It as a real shock to me when I first realized this........Barb Edited March 8, 2010 by BarbaraTherese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) I thank Sr. Laurel for her post as well. Very informing and clarifying, and it was certainly an issue that needed both. It maintained charity toward the person involved. For those that are new and have not witnessed the many threads on this issue I feel very uneasy about allowing the idea to surface that all remarks about a possible lack of charity by members surrounding this issue (or rather, person) were not fair or without reason since now we know, gratefully, the status of the project. I, hopefully briefly, just want to clarify that in the past most of the comments, in my opinion (and you may take it for whatever you will) regarding a lack of charity were made because things were said unkindly about [i]the person[/i]...even to the person publicly... rather then about solely the project itself. And I am very sorry for the hostility toward her as an individual that I observed. It is a delicate matter, handled very nicely in this instance by Sr. Laurel. Certainly it is not uncharitable to look at things with God-given reason and prudence and to look at these things (not persons) critically. Certainly no vocation should be led astray by this odd group that claims approval and support when it has none at the moment, and it is a good thing that this has been clarified. I am certainly not sorry it has been, but rather relieved. Thank you, Sr. Laurel. [quote name='HisChild' date='07 March 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1267976889' post='2068026'] Exactly, ST. I don't like how some people misuse being 'charitable'. Because some disguise it as nothing more than not saying anything that can be construed as negative. Not so. In Scripture we read in MT 18:15-17 - “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’[b] 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. It is indeed charity to offer correction if it could potentially harm the body of Christ. No one, I think, is of the mind that these people cannot gather online for their spiritual advancement and possible holiness. But to state the Church is supporting the endeavor? Perhaps not such a good idea. [/quote] Indeed it is charity. In regards to the above quote, I cannot help but wonder how many of those that were critical of her [i]as a person[/i], which - I think - is what was so often termed uncharitable by others (including myself) actually took it to her privately before saying things that were said on the public forum. Edited March 8, 2010 by TotusTuusMaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroswitha1943 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 [quote name='Indwelling Trinity' date='07 March 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1268011399' post='2068436'] Well we don't know for sure if others hopes have been exploited and I have not heard her ever mention a word about money. I pray such is not the case for that is a very painful experience. Funny thing is it can happen on both sides of the equation.... I had a vocation sent to me from another Carmelite nun, who was a professional manipulator par excellance; needless to say I needed unguentine and bandages for a while given all the misinformation she gave not only to myself, local pastors, neighbors and the diocese, that it caused a veritable mess even as diligently as I tried to discern the truth of what was really going on. With her being from another country only made it more difficult to track down the truth. She even had local priests duped for a while until I finally was able to track down a former superior of hers. So I have learned to be more careful of discerners also. But my posts were not meant to be an apologetic for any one individual but only a caution to see more than one side of the equation. Sighs I find this all so very disheartening conversation ... [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroswitha1943 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 [quote name='Indwelling Trinity' date='07 March 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1268011399' post='2068436'] Well we don't know for sure if others hopes have been exploited and I have not heard her ever mention a word about money. I pray such is not the case for that is a very painful experience. Funny thing is it can happen on both sides of the equation.... I had a vocation sent to me from another Carmelite nun, who was a professional manipulator par excellance; needless to say I needed unguentine and bandages for a while given all the misinformation she gave not only to myself, local pastors, neighbors and the diocese, that it caused a veritable mess even as diligently as I tried to discern the truth of what was really going on. With her being from another country only made it more difficult to track down the truth. She even had local priests duped for a while until I finally was able to track down a former superior of hers. So I have learned to be more careful of discerners also. But my posts were not meant to be an apologetic for any one individual but only a caution to see more than one side of the equation. Sighs I find this all so very disheartening conversation ... [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts