Gwen Stefani really won’t marry Blake Shelton until her first marriage is annulled

Gwen Stefani, Blake Shelton attends The 2019 People 's Choice Awards in Los Angeles

Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton have been together for more than four years. It feels like longer! It also feels like Gwen has been waiting for Blake to propose. She always prided herself on being an old-fashioned woman and she tends to believe that every relationship will eventually lead to marriage. So how is it that Blake has never proposed? Maybe he has. Or maybe he’s waiting because he knows that Gwen is still trying to get her first marriage annulled. We heard earlier this year that Gwen, a lifelong Catholic, has been working on getting her marriage to Gavin Rossdale annulled, years after they were legally married. I said at the time that I didn’t know the Catholic Church would annul a marriage which produced children and lasted for thirteen years. But here we are.

After four years together, Blake Shelton and Gwen Stefani are ready to take the next step. Constantly followed by rumors of a secret engagement or wedding, the couple — who have teamed up for a new love song, “Nobody But You,” featured on Shelton’s newest album Fully Loaded: God’s Country (out Dec. 13) — have hit a roadblock as they plan their future together, multiple sources tell PEOPLE in its latest cover story.

“Blake was very serious about Gwen right from the start, and early on he thought about proposing,” says a Stefani insider. But the former No Doubt rocker, who is a practicing Roman Catholic, hopes to have a church ceremony with the country star. The Roman Catholic Church does not allow remarriage after a divorce unless the earlier marriage is annulled, which can be a lengthy process, and the Stefani insider confirms a church ceremony “isn’t possible currently.”

Still, the Voice coaches are certain they’ve found “the one” in each other and are “very serious” about their relationship, says a friend of the couple. “It’s definitely headed toward marriage.”

Over the last few years, Shelton, 43, has become a second father figure to Stefani’s sons, Kingston, 13, Zuma, 11, and Apollo, 5, and the singers’ respective families have also become close. “They’re all very like-minded and comfortable with each other,” says the friend. “Gwen brings this sparkle to the country world. Her love for Blake is clear, and she’s been embraced by everyone.”

And now with any heartbreak firmly in the past, the couple are focused on living a full life together. “They fall more and more in love with one another, and their happiness quotient keeps rising,” says the friend.

[From People]

Well, that adds another aspect to it which I hadn’t considered – it’s not so much that Gwen is eager to annul her first marriage – although she might be eager, who knows – it’s that she wants to get married to Blake in the Catholic Church and they won’t let her until her first marriage is annulled. Got it. So… basically, the Church is slow-walking the annulment and Blake and Gwen are fine anyway. They’re living in sin as an unmarried couple though! What does the church have to say about that?!?

Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton arrive at the Los Angeles premiere of Forrest Films' 'Bennett's War'

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

136 Responses to “Gwen Stefani really won’t marry Blake Shelton until her first marriage is annulled”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. caitlinsmom says:

    But Blake has been married before too. And to marry in the Catholic church, he would have to at least convert, if he isn’t Catholic. He too might have to get his previous marriage annulled as well, unless the /catholic church doesn’t recognize prior non-catholic marriages.

    So there is more to this. it’s not just about GS wanting an annulment.

    • Scal says:

      His first marriage wasn’t a catholic one-so he wouldn’t have to have it annulled. All annulment means in the catholic tradition anymore is that it wasn’t a sacramental marriage. You were still legally married, kids are still legal etc. Just not blessed.

      Since neither of his previous marriages were in the church he doesn’t have that issue. He doesn’t have to convert either, they could still have their marriage blessed in church they just couldn’t have full mass. And would have to agree to raise the kids catholic which is already happening.

      • pottymouth pup says:

        “His first marriage wasn’t a catholic one-so he wouldn’t have to have it annulled.”

        that’s not true, any prior marriage regardless of whether it was done by the Catholic church would have to be annulled by the church for them to get married in a Catholic church. The prior marriage doesn’t even have to have been a Christian one, the church would still require an annulment if the prior marriage was a Jewish one

      • Marianne says:

        @pottymouth. No, if the marriage wasn’t Catholic, it has to be dissolved obviously but annulment not necessary because it wasn’t a sacramental one. So, annulment not necessary.

    • Annie says:

      You’re correct, he would definitely have to convert and get his previous marriages annulled. They could have their marriage blessed by the Church if he didn’t convert (but he’d still need the annulments).

      And it doesn’t matter that he and/or his previous spouse(s?) weren’t Catholic. ANY type of marriage, esp by a baptized Christian but even then legal ones by non-baptized individuals, has to be examined by the Church and declared ‘invalid.’

      Trust me, even if it’s all capable of being annulled, there’s a loooooot of paperwork and canon lawyers involved.

      • Mcali02 says:

        Yup! Except it isn’t as big of a process as I assume it used to be. Otherwise my parents wouldn’t have done it. I believe there was paperwork and interviews and that was it on their end.

      • jayheca says:

        I am catholic, married in the church to a non-catholic. He did not have to convert.

      • Marianne says:

        No, see comment of jayheca. The non Catholic spouse does not have to convert. My husband wasn’t Catholic and we were married in the church.

    • ennie says:

      As faras I know, if you are catholic, you can marry a person of a different faith if you get a special permission from the bishop. I don’t remember all the details, but a girl I follow in Youtube who is catholic, married a Japanese buddhist guy. They married in a church and all that in my country, and then they will have a buddhist ceremony at some point, as they are very busy.
      My sister in law is German-Mexican, and her sister married in a church.too, and did not convert, her husband is catholic. I know other people who did convert, though.
      Some people are respectful of other’s faith, while others adapt, as did my brother. He did not expressely convert, but married my sis in law into her faith and participate more into that, too, nothing too fervorous.

      • Caitrin says:

        You don’t necessarily need special permission. The onus is on the Catholic in the relationship to promise to raise any children Catholic.

        I’m Catholic, and my husband was Lutheran (he’s since converted) – we went through the entire sacramental process leading up to marriage, but our ceremony just didn’t include the Eucharist. 🙂

      • ennie says:

        🙂 great! The lady I saw in youtube is not raising their children catholic, they’ll teach them about both religions and then they can choose later when they are older, if they want to. It depends on the couple’s agreement then. your arrangement sounds more like my brother’s.

    • Ohpioneer says:

      Blake Shelton won’t have to convert but he most definitely will have to have any and all prior marriages annulled. A family member of mine went through this a few years back. Although her fiancé was not Catholic and was only married to another non Catholic for a few brief months and their marriage was actually annually by the state he still had to get a Catholic annulment before they could be married in the church.

      • Smalltown Girl says:

        This is a diocese specific thing because I do know divorced non Catholics who have been allowed to marry in the church. The specific diocese has a lot of sway over certain things and policies and the specific archbishop.

      • Caitrin says:

        This is true – he wouldn’t have to convert at ALL, but his marriage would have to be annulled. When Mary Matalin converted to Catholicism (she and my husband converted at the same parish at the same time), she filed for an annulment of her first marriage so that she and James Carville could marry in the Church.

        (They’d obviously been married for quite a long time already, and had children together.)

      • Kosmos says:

        He would have a “hella” time trying to get an annullment from Miranda LOL. As for Gwen, I always thought an annullment meant that the marriage had not been consumated, meaning no sex took place, which, of course, doesn’t apply to either of them. So I’m confused on this one–also, is she waiting on Gavin to go along with her on this one, or can she petition the church/court herself?

    • M.A.F. says:

      He would not need to convert. My father is not Catholic, he isn’t anything, but my mom is and they got married in the Catholic Church.

    • styla says:

      No. He wouldn’t have to convert. Catholic churches are a lot more lenient than believed and a lot more lenient than they say they are. My husband isn’t Catholic, isn’t baptized, and we were married quite easily. A generation ago my mom was easily able to marry my Catholic father but where they ran into some slight trouble was with baptizing us. And that was only because the priest at the small Croatian Catholic church didn’t want to do it. It was done at another non-culturally based Catholic church. That would be the norm as I have known many others to baptize their children Catholic quite easily despite only one parent being Catholic.

      The thing is, church attendance is at an all time low and for the past fifty years they have had to make revisions otherwise they’d have no congregation. But even before that, it wasn’t so strict. But there are strict priests, believe that!

      • Mcali02 says:


      • Trashaddict says:

        styla for the win. One of the reasons the catholic church has survived for so long – adaptability, picking up local traditions and interpreting them within the religion, bending the rules a bit. I have to admit, all the variations I’m hearing on the whole Catholic marriage thing here are fascinating. I do think the requirement for prewedding counselling is kind of a smart thing. I’m wondering what others think.

    • InsertNameHere says:

      I was married in the Catholic Church and I’m not Catholic – my husband is. It wasn’t a problem.

    • lisa says:

      NO, Blake would not have to convert and they can have a full Mass. He just can’t take Communion. (The Catholic Church always relaxes rules when they see a lack of butts in the seats. In the 70s, you could always tell who was divorced by those who did not go up for Communion.)

  2. Ripley says:

    My dad’s dad had his 25 year marriage which produced seven children (and two miscarriages) annulled by the Church. My dad had to sign a paper acknowledging he was now a bastard (he was 24 at the time). I don’t know if proclaiming the children bastards has changed, but I hope for her boys’ sakes it has. If you have the money the Church allows a lot…

    • T.Fanty says:

      That’s the thing I was thinking about. If one is that much of a believer, then it seems a bit of a crappy thing to do to one’s kids.

    • Kate says:

      This was always my dad’s rationale for never marrying his now 20+ year partner, because of the whole annulment/bastard thing. I can’t even with religion…

    • Kebbie says:

      If you don’t mind me asking, how long ago was that? Others down thread are saying they definitely don’t do that anymore.

      • Ripley says:

        Not at all… It would have been early 1970s. My dad stopped calling his dad “dad” that day and only referred to him by his first name. He also left the church and so I don’t know all the rules nowadays. But he always jokes that if someone calls him a bastard it’s probably true figuratively and definitely true literally.

      • Kebbie says:

        I can see why he wouldn’t call him Dad, I’d be devastated if one of my parents went through with that. At least he has a sense of humor about it!

      • Trashaddict says:

        Wow, divorce is hard enough for a kid without throwing all the baggage in with it. I feel bad for your dad.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Yeah, if you have the money, the Catholic Church will allow pretty much anything, Ask the Kennedy family about their many annulments, or the mafia murderers who still get to be buried on consecrated grounds.

  3. Jackie says:

    That’s the part I don’t get. If they’re already “living in sin” what is the big deal about having a church wedding?

    • Char says:

      And if she is so Catholic, why is she trying to cheat on her own religion rules? Legally you were married and have rights she’ll sure pursuit it, but spiritually it didn’t meant nothing?

      • DS9 says:

        It’s not “trying to cheat”.

        Annulments are permitted and are permitted in certain circumstances, mostly those the church recognizes makes it nearly impossible to have a true, healthy marriage.

        Your husband being a cheater cheater who never intended to be faithful, thus entering into marriage in bad faith is one of them.

        So is getting married while knocked up, btw.

      • Smalltown Girl says:

        She actually has a solid case for an annulment as infidelity is one of the grounds for an annulment.

    • styla says:

      Living in sin is one thing but I don’t think even priests take that so seriously. Its just the way people have been living since before Jesus even supposedly came along. Sacraments are still given despite that and always have been, even in medieval times when “living in sin” was also the norm. But the reason why the Catholic church is a stickler about annulments (not divorce, thats the legal side of things) is because the idea is that God consecrated the marriage. Marriage is a sacrament which is kind of like a rite of passage directed by god and its one where god unifies two souls apparently. So while divorcing is basically a legal thing where assets and titles are redefined… an annulment is like a spiritual separation that god understands was done for the best interests of both parties. I guess the idea is that the church wants to make sure that revoking the marriage/sacrament is something that is all that can be done. That there is no way to work through it. Its definitely a process but Gwen will get it if she applies, I am sure.

      • Caitrin says:

        My priest first tried to make my husband move out of our shared home during our engagement, and when we point blank told him no, he asked him to move into the guest room.

        Yeah, not so much.

        (We’ve been married for ten years, though, so I guess it worked out?)

  4. Stef says:

    How can you possibly have a marriage annulled when it was long-term and produced 3 beautiful children? This makes no sense to me.

    Perhaps Gwen just doesn’t want to marry Blake and is using this as an excuse to not legalize her hillbilly love.

    Also, can Gwen please write a tell-all about hot ex-husband Gavin so we know what really happened? I mean, we all know he’s bi-sexual and that’s no big deal. There must be a lot more to this story…

    • Jennifer says:

      My understanding is that if one party never intended to be faithful, the grounds are there, but I think it’s a lengthy, case by case process.

      • Kebbie says:

        I’ve always heard abuse, addiction, and affairs are all grounds for ending a marriage in Catholicism, but I don’t know the technicalities of annulments.

      • SamC says:

        Addiction, abuse, etc. are accepted as reasons now but that wasn’t always the case. Belief used to be that “God would never give you more than you could handle,” and staying would get you into Heaven faster. Yup, heard that in CCD straight from the nuns and laypeople instructing.

      • Lady D says:

        I remember hearing once in my youth that God would never give you more than you could handle. I walked away laughing at how badly he had underestimated my strength.

    • Astrid says:

      My second husband is catholic and he recently, briefly toyed with the idea of an annulment from his first wife. Technically as a divorced catholic, he can’t do the weekly wafer and wine thing. The annulment process is now framed as “your civil divorce is done through the legal system and your spiritual/catholic divorce is done through an annulment”, sort of thing. The recent description from the catholic church assures us that children will no longer be considered bastards. It’s just a “clean” break with God from your first divorce. Which I personally think is word salad and bullshit. Grounds for an annulment these days are for cheating/infidelity, one of the party’s is crazy, and/or something else which is really lame.

      • Ohpioneer says:

        @Astrid He can’t receive Communion because he remarried without an Annulment not because he’s divorced. Divorced individuals who are single may continue to receive the Sacraments.

    • Mo says:

      It is kinda sketchy. I say this as someone raised Catholic. My parents still are and they think it’s sketchy as well.

      The justification is that it shows mercy and how seriously people are supposed to take marriage vows. To get married in the Church, you need to go through “pre-Cana” marriage preparatory classes. What it has turned into that bullshitting the pre-Cana lessons is now grounds for annulment. So cheating isn’t necessarily grounds for an annulment, but vowing to be faithful if you weren’t intending to be is. So like divorce for cause used to be, an annulment is reasonably straightforward if your former spouse is willing to admit that they were the one who caused the end of the marriage.

      What shows the hypocrisy is that they don’t make the couple marrying a second time prove that they are intending to follow their vows this time.

      Also, how easy it is to get an annulment depends on the diocese. Each bishop sets the rules for their region. And even where most annulments are approved it takes around two years.

  5. Toot says:

    Ted Kennedy annulled his marriage and had children so it is possible.

    • SamC says:

      Joe Kennedy II too, after a long marriage and kids. Annulment was approved at the local diocese level but later overturned in Rome; his first wife adamantly opposed it and there was some sketchiness on how it got pushed through Boston.

      • holly hobby says:

        Oh yeah I remember that being all over the press. Sheila wouldn’t let it go and she got her way finally! Marriage not annulled. Their son is now in Congress.

  6. lara (the other) says:

    My Uncle got his marriage annulled after 20 years and two children.
    Turned my cousins into “bastards” according to the Catholic church. They haven´t talked to him since.
    If you are so keen on the church laws, do you really want to tell your Children you consider the illigitmate?

    • Mo says:

      The Church no longer does this. The new reasoning is that the “innocent” spouse was deceived and thus the children are legitimate based on the sacramental marriage of that parent.

      Cool fact: my mom was born in Georgia in the 1940s. Her birth certificate has an actual legitimate/illegitimate checkbox in the upper right hand corner. That shit really did follow you for life. Since 9/11, when you started having to produce your birth certificate again, when she shows it, people gasp when they realize what they are reading. (Spoiler: she was legitimate.)

      • lara (the other) says:

        Since my uncles first marriage was only a civil marriage and not a catholic one and my aunt signed, that she never intended to be married in church, the first marriage was considered invalid after the annulment.
        But since in Germany only the civil marriage counts legally it hat no formal consequences for my cusins, only the strange feeling that my uncle considered them illigitimate.
        Maybe it is different in countries where a religious marriage is legally binding.

  7. SamC says:

    As a practicing Catholic, she is also probably pursuing annulment so she can continue to receive sacraments (i.e. Communion), and to have a role in her kids going through the process, as well as to to get married in the church.

    In addition to the church agreeing, Gavin has to agree that the marriage was invalid, etc. I’d guess that may be the holdup, not the church part of it.

  8. Lady L says:

    It’s likely her first marriage lacked form, since she was Catholic but not married in the Church, which should make her annulment easy. Unless she had it convalidated.

    Blake doesn’t have to convert for them to get married, but he would have to have his previous marriages annulled before the Church will marry the two of them.

    • Kebbie says:

      I don’t think his previous marriages matter because the church wouldn’t recognize them if they weren’t Catholic weddings.

      • Astrid says:

        Yes, the catholic church does care for some reason, even if a first marriage wasn’t done at a catholic church. My first justice of the peace marriage would still require some kind of annulment.

      • Lady L says:

        They care, but in general it’s much easier to show that the intent aspect was lacking than it is in a Catholic ceremony.

    • Nic919 says:

      As long as he promises to raise any kids Catholic, he does not need to convert and can get married in a church. They just won’t do the full mass in the ceremony.

  9. Mcali02 says:

    Ok people….
    1. You can have a marriage annulled. Even after many years.
    2. If you are Catholic, you can marry a non Catholic in a church.
    3. Annullment doesn’t make your children bastards.
    How do I know this? My parents got their five year marriage annulled ten years after they divorced and married other people.

    And if anyone deserves an annulment it is Gwen Stefani. What her ex put her through…OMG.

    • Mcali02 says:

      And we didn’t have money. So money isn’t a factor.

      • lara (the other) says:

        Is there a difference if the first marriage wasn’t in church?
        When my uncles marriage was anulled we were told that the church basically decided it had never happened and thus his children were born out of wedlock (only church law, not common law). My aunt hat to sign, that she never intended to marry him in church.
        Are there different kinds of annulment, based ob the kind of first marriage?

      • ennie says:

        Some people can try to claim that the marriage was not in a church as grounds for an annulment later.
        There is an actress in my country that did that, went for an annulment and one of the things she said was that they had the ceremony at the beach or something. that is why in some parishes they are adamant that the actual ceremony is in a church. thankfully to make everyone happy, we have to have a civil ceremony, which is the one that legally counts.
        You can do that wherever, as long as you have the judge and make everything legal. If you only marry in a church or any religious wedding, it doesn’t count at all legally.

    • Jennifer says:

      Thanks for this! Very helpful.

    • ennie says:

      YES TO ALL.

  10. Snap Happy says:

    She won’t marry him because this is a PR relationship and they won’t mess their estates together.

    • DS9 says:

      You do know that prenups handle estate issues and can and often do keep things legally separate, yes?

      • Snap Happy says:

        Omg??? Really??? I had no idea. Can you enlighten me on more things???

        1. Prenups can be contested.
        2. Why go through with a marriage at all if It’s just for PR? This way they still get the press and don’t have to put anyone through a charade.

      • DS9 says:

        Why are you assuming this is for PR?

      • Snap Happy says:

        Because they were both recently out of relationships and this made them both look desirable. They were also on the same show and that gave them lots of publicity.

      • DS9 says:

        It’s been four years.

        And no, neither needed the other to continue their careers or visibility and/or could have easily found someone else to work out just as well or better.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        CA is a state where what you have accrued BEFORE marriage is considered your sole property/money UNLESS you co-mingle it into joint accounts (this is also true about anything you inherit during the marriage: if you keep it as your sole property and don’t put it in the “joint pot”). So whatever they start with, they finish with. The only things/monies that is accrued DURING the marriage is what is up for “grabs” (ie: 50/50) unless under a pre-nup, which yes, can be contested.

      • Snap Happy says:

        To “The OG” I don’t just mean financials, if they were to marry people would expect them
        To live together. Would one have to move into the others house? Sell their houses and buy one together? I think they are friends who like each other’s company enough to spend time together and keep the relationship going.

    • billypilgrim says:

      @Snap Happy
      Total PR in his part. Think she’d marry him tho.

    • Tigger says:

      Gwen hasn’t walked a red carpet for her last three movies, wasn’t on the Voice for 2 1/2 years and is not coming back to the Voice, but yeah, she’s doing it for the Voice. (Sarcasm)

      • DS9 says:

        Thank you! Gwen has always had options. Four years is a long time to play act at a relationship you don’t need.

        I truly believe these two love each other and that Blake treats her really well. And that’s why they’re together.

      • Snap Happy says:

        Isn’t she on the Voice right now? And Blake has been on it for the last 45 years. I’m sure he has made a ton of money from that show and they welcome any PR.

      • Tigger says:

        Snap – she was brought on last minute due to Adam leaving, not exactly a big plan. Gwen would still be very visible without Blake and most of her fans don’t lean country, so it doesn’t help her at all.

  11. DS9 says:

    Idk what or when it changed, but the Catholic church does annul marriages with children and does not declare those children bastards and hasn’t since 1999. I saw someone’s annulment paperwork with my own eyeballs then and it stated it clearly.

    • Kebbie says:

      I’m thinking the bastards thing must have been super old school because I’ve never heard of such a thing.

  12. Bettyrose says:

    But who’s the woman with Blake Shelton in that bottom pic?

  13. OriginalLara says:

    As an agnostic I don’t get church rules in general.

    As a former No Doubt fan I don’t recognise her anymore. Those pics on the red carpet, if she’d had been by herself, without Blake at her side, I wouldn’t have ever guessed that’s Gwen Stefani.

    • teehee says:

      I think its terrible contouring (not even necessary), filled eyebrows (also not necessary) and the wrong shades to top it off, to contour and to fill the brows. Washes her out and is too contrasting.
      She doesnt need contouring or to change her brows, so lets just hope she puts the brush down next time.

  14. Tourmaline says:

    Is Gwen banging Blake? Then they aren’t following the Catholic rules to the letter either. This is all PR stuff to give People and related mags something to print on them and give a storyline as to why they are not married since they are so in luvvv…

    • Mcali02 says:

      Please. I am a practicing Catholic and I dont follow all the “rules” or beliefs either. No one does. I think she wants to recieve communication with her kids – I’d do the same.

      And I dont believe it’s PR. It’s been four years and he’s around her kids. A lot.

  15. Christina says:

    Look at that last photo of him. Look at it. That was People’s sexiest man alive. Good heavens!

  16. Ready2Go says:

    My Dad did this to my Mom. They divorced bc he was cheating on my Mom, and then he wanted to marry one of those women and he asked for an annulment bc she was a good Catholic girl. My Mom hires a lawyer and fought it but the Catholic Church has endless money, and eventually my Mom gave up. I was 3 when they divorced, and I didn’t find out until I was 33. I was furious!

  17. Lucky Charm says:

    1. The Church annulment has nothing to do with number of years married or number of children. It’s determining whether or not the marriage was a valid sacramental marriage according to the church. That’s why you still have to have a legal divorce first. And no, a Catholic Church annulment does not make any children of the marriage illegitimate. If you were legally married according to the state, they are and always will be legitimate.
    2. Some annulments take longer than others, it depends on the cooperation of both parties and witnesses. My annulment only took six weeks and cost less than $200.
    3. If your future spouse has been married before, but not in a church, they do not need an annulment of their previous marriage (check with your parish priest if the previous church wedding would require one, depending on the faith).
    4. You can have a Catholic wedding even if your future spouse isn’t Catholic. You just can’t have the full wedding Mass (that’s only for couples that both are practicing Catholics). But once they started their pre-Cana they would need to live apart until the wedding, no way a priest would allow them to live together as a married couple before the marriage.

    • Ohpioneer says:

      @Luckycharm They will do a full Mass wedding if the non Catholic is a fully participating member of their religion. Just attended a wedding with a full Mass where the bride was not Catholic.

    • Trashaddict says:

      Not have a full wedding Mass = more time for the reception.

  18. Scorpio ♏️ Rants says:

    Those last two sentences? Exactly what I was thinking!

    I’m so tired of the hypocrisy and cherry picking in many of the “devout”…….I’ve truly grown to despise any and all public displays of An individuals faith / religion. I go by what you show me, not what you tell me.

  19. emmy says:

    This is just one of the many many reasons why I can’t take organized relision seriously.

  20. Val says:

    How she gets around the “living in sin” clause – my practicing Catholic friend who was already living with and banging her non-Catholic future husband, had to go to confession to unburden that “sin” every week. So as long as you say enough Hail Marys or whatever, all is forgiven!

    • Jenn says:

      Well, that’s not technically how it is supposed to work. :/

      • Original Jenns says:

        Agree, you’re supposed to repent and not do whatever you did again. Otherwise, you’re not really sorry/confessing. It’s why I don’t confess (oops).

    • Bettyrose says:

      It’s a bit like Russian Roulette, though, isn’t it? If you sin, confess, sin…what if you don’t make it you church before that final confession?? That last sin gets logged.

      • DS9 says:

        That’s uhm, not Catholic doctrine.

        If it was, Catholics would be screwed if they died between their last confession and the last rites, or however it works.

        And don’t Catholics differentiate between venial sins and mortal sins?

      • Original Jenns says:

        There is a difference between sins, which means there are some that you HAVE to confess to vs. you should (but don’t have to) confess to in order to be in good standing with the Church.

      • Nic919 says:

        Living in sin is fornication and she’s intentionally doing it without any actual effort to stop it, so at the moment it would be a mortal sin. Even if she goes to confession she’s not intending to stop. If she cared about Catholicism that much she would be celibate until she could get married.

      • DS9 says:

        It’s amazing how many people feel ways about religious people blindly following all of the rules but then feel some kind of way when we use some discernment in which rules we follow.

    • ennie says:

      nope, you are supposed to change your ways, but since no-one is following around checking on your behaviors, you can do as you want and continue confessing.
      My mom married a divorced man (my dad) long ago. She confessed frequently and could not receive communion. After many years, when they were elderly, she moved to a different room and started receiving communion again, I guess they were not “cohabiting” in the sexual sense of the word. Later, my dad’s ex passed away, but the did not marry, they were too old to care, but still loved each other, anomy mom wanted communion more than marriage.

  21. DS9 says:

    Some of the replies in here are strange.

    Yes, some people let ‘smaller’ things slide in their faith and put more emphasis on ‘larger’ ones and it’s not always or even usually hypocrisy that drives them but a personal interpretation of what’s a reasonable or intended rationale or what’s important in the long.

    So no, I don’t find it strange or suspicious that a woman we know regularly attends church, who was previously married to a trash bag would want to make sure her ducks were in a row before legally and religiously tying herself again to another man. And in that context, I understand why she’d choose to “live in sin” with him looking term.

    People do these things in life all of the time, not just religion but with the law, with work, etc. Does a propensity for speeding mean traffic laws are trash?

    I’m not a fan of dictating how one chooses to live their own faith unless they are using it to be bigots or to discriminate or judge.

    • Nic919 says:

      People who regularly attend church have committed terrible sins so that’s not a sign of anything but adhering to the bare minimum expectation of being a Catholic.

      She is living in sin and committing fornication with no intention to stop. No priest is going to say it’s ok because she’s just waiting for the annulment. She is expected to be celibate until marriage. Period. If she’s not doing that then she’s being a hypocrite and if she’s going to confession it’s even worse because she is lying about her intention to stop fornicating to get absolution. Which is lying to the priest. In theory she shouldn’t even be taking communion because she hasn’t been absolved from the sin she is continuously committing.

      Culturally, living in sin is not a big deal, but go back 20 years and priests would often demand people to live separately and move out if they wanted to get married in a Catholic Church. So it remains a big deal in the church itself and she is just doing what is convenient for her, but it’s not what is permitted by the church doctrine. Celibacy until marriage is the only thing accepted by the church.

      • Nic919 says:

        And yes this is judgy, but this is what the church expects. There are no freebies there. She can do what she wants, but pretending this is purely about her Catholicism is what’s bs. Because she’d be celibate if she was going to do it the Catholic way.

      • DS9 says:

        I am not speaking in terms of the chosen religion itself.

        I’m speaking of how one integrates the religion that best speaks to them into their personal life in a truly meaningful and resonating way.

        Most religious traditions expect celibacy when not married. Most of those demands are ancient and I’d argue remnants of ancient/outdated patriarchal and/or societal modes that aren’t relevant today.

        I guess the interpretation for some is fine, ditch religion all together and that’s fine if that works for you.

        But it doesn’t work for many of us. There are a ton of us who take comfort in expressions of faith, in regular church attendance, in some of the expectations and rituals of a particular religion.

        Some consider it cherry picking or hypocrisy but to me, it’s using my God given discernment to know the man made history of the church and deciding what part of what men have created is comforting and what might be harmful at the worst and unnecessary at the least.

        Many Catholics have rejected the church’s interpretation on gay relationships for example. So what the big deal with deciding the church is wrong about sex?

    • ennie says:

      It puzzles me that critics of the catholic church are quite judge. we live in a catholic country and there are people who live different lives and are not living like soldiers under religion rules. yes, there are extremists everywhere, yes, people leave their religion to find a more suitable one since time immemorial, but I still find it funny.
      I am a catholic who agrees with contraception, divorce, second marriages, gay marriage and abortion. I don’t consider myself a feminist in the extreme sense of the word.I just think that if you see the other side of things closely, there is no other way but to do this.
      I have had young gay students for whom I long they find happiness and the joy of having choice, I have seen lives wasted, children suffering and being terribly mistreatedI think that adoption is not enough of a solution in reality, the choice of abortion is needed, too. and so on.

      • Trashaddict says:

        I like your comment but it always irks me when people need to add the disclaimer about not being an “extreme” feminist. I feel like the younger generation is not waiting for anyone else to validate who they are or what they choose to believe. The time for apologizing or back-peddling about being a feminist is over.
        (Stops brief rant, steps down from soapbox).

  22. Andrea says:

    I find it all ridiculous in this case. She was madly in love with Gavin, worshipped the ground he walked on. They were together 20 years total. She knew he was unfaithful prior to marriage, listen to her songs during their courtship. She only wants an annulment now so she can continue with the sacraments. Imo, if she knew how he was, she is just as culpable.

    • Kebbie says:

      Maybe she knew what she was getting into, but she certainly wasn’t culpable for his behavior. Supposedly what broke them up wasn’t his infidelity, it was his infidelity with their children’s nanny. A lot of couples have arrangements where one looks the other way. Unfortunately, men like Gavin and Ben Affleck still manage to cross that line and push it too far.

      • Andrea says:

        She definitely isn’t culpable in the infidelity and he definitley pushed it too far with the lookalike nanny, but at the same time, I am squeamish on the annulment business since she spent two decades with the man. I am a former practicing Catholic and honestly my best guy friend was cheated on mulitple times by his wife. He has 4 kids with her and said the annulment business is too lengthy and pricey 10k!! He is looking into other religions now. He feels partly at fault for marrying her in the first place(hindsight is 20/20).

      • Mcali02 says:

        FYI – Annulments don’t cost 10K. My parents got one and they sure didn’t have that kind of money.

        Also, she spent two decades with a man who treated her like s***. She deserves that annulment so she can take part in her religion 100% with her kids. None of anyone’s business anyway.

      • DS9 says:

        Does Blake need an annulment for a full Catholic wedding mass?

        Because if so, it’s probably not Gavin who’s the problem….

      • Andrea says:

        @MCALI02 My best friend’s Catholic church told him 10k. This is probably a 1.) Cash grab and 2.) Because he is well known in the community

      • Mcali02 says:

        @ANDREA That is messed up. Not sure how they justified it costing that amount of money.

  23. Mcali02 says:

    So many Catholic experts in here. And judgey ones too. How about minding your own business and not chime in on what her beliefs/actions should be because she’s Catholic. Guess what? My parents had me out of wedlock! My parents got divorced! I lived with my non-Catholic husband before we got married! I dont go to confession! And you know what? The Catholic police haven’t come to take me away. I still receive communion, my son was baptized Catholic and goes to religious education. So simmer down people! Her faith and how she chooses to practice it IS NOT any of your business.

    • M.A.F. says:

      1. We Catholics are judgey. Our Church has too many archaic rules and frankly, this is one of them.
      2. If she didn’t want people to know about her life, especially this,then why put this out there? This was done with her (or their) permission.
      3. You are on a gossip site that allows comments. If you didn’t want to read the comments then go read the story over at Lainey where she doesn’t allow comments.

      • Mcali02 says:

        1. Speak for yourself. I was taught religion is personal and it’s none of anyone’s business how you practice it. 10 years of Catholic education taught me that. That’s not how I was raised in the Church. If you are Catholic and were raised differently that’s a shame.
        2. I don’t remember her discussing any of this publicly. People are really reaching on this….
        3. I read Lainey and she’s awesome. I am commenting because people don’t know what they are talking about and are spreading misinformation. Sorry – pet peeve of mine.

        Peace be with you.

  24. Blairski says:

    Why do some rules apply and others do not? Here’s a question: Mark Wahlberg professes to be devout, yet he had three children out of wedlock with Rhea Durham before they got married in the Catholic Church in 2009. So that’s okay, but getting remarried after a civil divorce from someone who cheated on you is not? So. Confused.

    • DS9 says:

      You are conflating two different rules.

      • Blairski says:

        DS9 – Thanks, but do you have any more explanation? I am really trying to understand why it’s okay to have kids out of wedlock and then get married, vs. why it’s not okay to get remarried.

      • DS9 says:

        The presence of children is irrelevant.

        You cannot be married in a Catholic ceremony if the Catholic church believes you are already married. They require a certain process to invalidate a marriage before they can solemnize a second.

        Children have nothing to do with whether or not you are free to marry.

        It’s not so very different logically speaking from the government requiring you to be divorced before marrying again and them having rules for what makes a legal marriage and what makes for a divorce.

  25. Ann says:

    After a 24 year marriage that ended in part due to my then-husband’s infidelities and leaving, I’m a divorced 50 something Lutheran and my partner is a devout 50 something Catholic widower. I love him and respect his beliefs, and he mine. BUT. Partner asked if I would convert. I said no. Partner’s priest told me God considered me still married to my first husband. I told priest I was grateful that my religious beliefs allowed God to support my decision to divorce to a man who conceived a child with his mistress. Needless to say, there is no Catholic marriage in our future, and my partner and I are fine with that.

  26. M.A.F. says:

    Pretty sure she can find a priest and parish somewhere and get married. Not all are created equal. When my parents, one Catholic the other not, got married in the Church, they lucked out with a new priest who kind of side-step a lot of the pre-marriage stuff. I think the only thing they had to do was promise to raise the kids in the Church…which they did…kind of.

  27. Veronica S. says:

    It’s honestly baffling to me that this is still even a thing in the Catholic church. You’d think they would have adjusted to the reality of the times by now.

    • Ohpioneer says:

      @ Veronica S. The Church is eternal. It’s core beliefs are not dependent on what is currently accepted by society or trending or fashionable.

      • Veronica S. says:

        Yes, very eternal, what with Vatican II occurring only about sixty or so years ago and the current Pope pushing for another series of reformations.

        Religions change all the time to adjust to the needs of a society and new knowledge. That’s how most of them have survived the thousands of years. The ones that don’t are the ones that get left behind. Martin Luther didn’t spark a massive religious revolution because everybody agreed the Catholic church was unassailable. The current church is going to have to take a serious look at how modern technology and resource consumption has significantly altered human societies. The issue of birth control, for instance, is going to take on a significantly more ethically complex facet in an age where uneven resource distribution means industrialized nations are reaping benefit at the exploitation and suffering of any other nations. Anything human must change precisely because humans are always changing.

  28. No Doubt says:

    I’m firmly in the “he doesn’t want to marry her” side. He’s been married and divorced twice all before the age of 40. He probably isn’t in any hurry. He didn’t rush off and marry his first two wives either. Even if they were waiting for her marriage to get annulled, that doesn’t mean they can’t be engaged while they wait. So none of that makes sense.

  29. Moptop says:

    All this reminds me of why I’m not religious.

  30. sammiches says:

    I caught part of the Voice last night and Blake Shelton was performing. It was the first time I’d ever heard him and I need to know who his fans are because he is AWFUL.

  31. Tashiro says:

    Back in the 80s a co-worker who was Catholic was married ended up divorcing her husband who was also Catholic. She met someone else who was Catholic and divorced. They wanted to get married in the church but the priest told them they had to pay $3K. They married in a Unitarian ceremony instead. I know zero about Catholicism but the whole annulment thing is strange to me. I guess I associate annulments with the marriage not being consummated or there’s something fishy about the legality i.e. Someone being forced to marry against their will. Yeah I’ve read more historical romance novels than I would admit to publicly 😀

  32. enike says:

    unrelated to the topic, but OMG, Gwen has to stop with messing with her face.
    She looks totally different
    she used to be so pretty
    she is still pretty, but not Gwen anymore
    I didnt recognise her in the heading picture at all…. I thought its the former bunny, Hefner´s ex girlfriend whatshername

  33. NeoCleo says:

    Hypocritical. I walked away from the Catholic Church years ago for reasons such as this one.

  34. LadyGodiva says:

    I’m pretty sure this is a publicity relationship. They can’t get married cos it’s not a real relationship, and so they have to have this back and forth of “we might get married!” and “we can’t get married because of a, b, c”. It’s tired.