A Baptized Catholic, a Catholic Marriage?

[Aesq]

Br. Rich SFO:

Aesq:

Most Marriages of Catholics who are “away” that take place in Protestant communities are not recognized as valid by the Catholic Church.

Marriage laws have nothing to do with the validity of a marriage. You really need to research nullities. Your statement would not be true.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Aesq:

Br. Rich SFO:

Marriage laws have nothing to do with the validity of a marriage. You really need to research nullities. Your statement would not be true.

They would be defective in form and therefore not accepted by the Catholic Church and would need to be convalidated.

I’ll await your explanation as to what is wrong with my line of thought.

 

[Catholic2003]

This Ask an Apologist answer is also relevant to this discussion.

 

[savedbygrace]

My husband did this with his first marriage. He was divorced from his first wife when we met then we became engaged. When we talked to our Priest we were told it would be no problem because they call it “lack of form” We were able to get married in our Parish with no problem.

savedbygrace

 

[Aesq]

Br. Rich SFO:

Aesq:

They would be defective in form and therefore not accepted by the Catholic Church and would need to be convalidated.

I’ll await your explanation as to what is wrong with my line of thought.

What is wrong with your line of thought is this: if this is correct than it is more likely that a valid marriage does not exist in the case of a former or fallen away Catholic than in the case of someone who is totally outside the Church. This is not logical. It is also not Church doctrine. If two parties are legally married then before another marriage can take place the first must be annulled.

 

[Aesq]

As a further follow up there is a special petition for defective form that must be filed and ruled on prior to a new marriage. The marriage is still presumed valid. One of the key questions on a defective form petition for nullity is “has one of the parties to the marriage formally rejected the Catholic faith.” This would include joining another church which would preclude a defective form petition if this happen prior to the marrige. This is not a simple issue.

 

[Aesq]

Br. Rich SFO:

Aesq:

They would be defective in form and therefore not accepted by the Catholic Church and would need to be convalidated.

I’ll await your explanation as to what is wrong with my line of thought.

I do not think we are really on different pages here. I think to some extent we are talking past each other and not really arguing with each other. I think we see it the same way. I simply see truely defective form as quite rare. I think most who are fallen away have rejected at least some of the teachings of the Church and likely joined some other if they were married in some other church. Also, I was really looking at the original post on this thread, which said Baptized Catholic. I think Confirmed would probably be a better starting point. If they are old enough to be married and are not Confirmed they are not really Catholic.

 

[Catholic2003]

Aesq:

I simply see truely defective form as quite rare. I think most who are fallen away have rejected at least some of the teachings of the Church and likely joined some other if they were married in some other church. Also, I was really looking at the original post on this thread, which said Baptized Catholic. I think Confirmed would probably be a better starting point. If they are old enough to be married and are not Confirmed they are not really Catholic.

The criteria for no longer being bound by the canonical form for marriage is “defection from Catholic Church by a formal act”, not merely “fallen away” or “not really Catholic”. And this only applies to Latin Rite Catholics and weddings taking place on or after November 27, 1983.

As for the number of such decrees of nullity, Dr. Edward Peters’ article says: “In 1991, for example, nearly 18,700 of the 63,900 American declarations of nullity were based on violations of canonical form.”

 

[Aesq]

Catholic2003:

The criteria for no longer being bound by the canonical form for marriage is “defection from Catholic Church by a formal act”, not merely “fallen away” or “not really Catholic”. And this only applies to Latin Rite Catholics and weddings taking place on or after November 27, 1983.

Those numbers are higher then I would expect. I would like to point out however, when I said “not really Catholic” I ment that literally. You are not Catholic if you have not been Confirmed and you are of the proper age. You are simply not a member of the Catholic Church. You are not eligable to partake in the Sacraments. The person is not Catholic. By not being Comfirmed you are rejecting the Church by formal act. Also, if you join another church you are rejecting the Church by formal act.

 

[Catholic2003]

Aesq:

I would like to point out however, when I said “not really Catholic” I ment that literally.

Canonically, there is no such thing: Once Catholic, always Catholic. Even if you are excommunicated. Even if you defect from the Church by a formal act.

As regards the canonical form of marriage, canon 1117 of the 1983 Latin Rite Code of Canon Law specifically exempts those Catholics who have defected from the Church by a formal act from the requirement of canonical form. Prior to 1983, Latin Rite Catholics who defected from the Church by a formal act were still bound to the canonical form of marriage, as are Eastern Rite Catholics today.

Aesq:

You are not Catholic if you have not been Confirmed and you are of the proper age. You are simply not a member of the Catholic Church. You are not eligable to partake in the Sacraments. The person is not Catholic.

This isn’t true. Someone who is baptized Catholic is Catholic, that is, a member of the Catholic Church, subject to the canon law of the Catholic Church. Not being confirmed doesn’t bar a person from the Eucharist, nor from Reconciliation, nor from marriage (though confirmation is strongly recommended prior to marriage).

Aesq:

By not being Comfirmed you are rejecting the Church by formal act.

A “formal act” consists of doing something, i.e., an act. Not being confirmed, at any age, does not constitute defection from the Church by a formal act.

 

[Aesq]

There is only one Baptism denomination is not the issue with Baptism proper form only. Confirmation is what really makes one Catholic. Confirmation is required. You do not get to disregard Confirmation. You are quite mistaken.

See this quote:

1285: Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the “sacraments of Christian initiation,” whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace (Cf. Roman Ritual, Rite of Confirmation [OC], Introduction 1). For “by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed” (LG 11; cf. OC, Introduction 2).

 

[Aesq]

See Also:

1306 Every baptized person not yet confirmed can and should receive the sacrament of Confirmation. Since Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist form a unity, it follows that “the faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the appropriate time,” for without Confirmation and Eucharist, Baptism is certainly valid and efficacious, but Christian initiation remains incomplete.

 

[Catholic2003]

Aesq:

There is only one Baptism denomination is not the issue with Baptism proper form only. Confirmation is what really makes one Catholic. Confirmation is required. You do not get to disregard Confirmation. You are quite mistaken.

Here is the text of canon 1117:

Canon 1117 The form prescribed above is to be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it and has not by a formal act defected from it, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1127 §2.

So you can see that the canon explicitly includes (in the requirement of canonical form for marriage) all those baptized as Catholics, whether or not they have been confirmed.

Everything you are saying generally about confirmation as one of the sacraments of initiation is certainly true. However, this isn’t relevant for the very narrow question of who is subject to the requirement of canonical form for marriage.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Aesq:

See Also:

1306 Every baptized person not yet confirmed can and should receive the sacrament of Confirmation. Since Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist form a unity, it follows that “the faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the appropriate time,” for without Confirmation and Eucharist, Baptism is certainly valid and efficacious, but Christian initiation remains incomplete.

I agree. But you cannot carry this out to exclude from Catholic unity those who have been Baptized but who have not been Confirmed.

 

[Aesq]

Br. Rich SFO:

I agree. But you cannot carry this out to exclude from Catholic unity those who have been Baptized but who have not been Confirmed.

So are you saying that one who rejects Confirmation is still Catholic? Please explain. How is that different than someone outside the Church who is Baptized? There is only one Baptism. If one who rejects Comfirmation is still Catholic then logically all who are baptized are Catholic as they are in no different a state. Please explain if you see it otherwise.