Another marriage question - Pauline Privelege

[lada]

Does Pauline Privelge apply to marriages when neither party were baptized, and neither are still baptized?

The priest I spoke with seemed to give me the impression that this would apply to my husband’s first marriage as neither he nor his wife were baptized Christians. However, I thought this would only be the case if he were now a Catholic, but had been unbaptized at the time of his marriage. He’s still not baptized so I’m a little confused.

It didn’t really all sink in when I was talking with the priest as there was a lot to digest.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Does Pauline Privilege apply to marriages when neither party were baptized, and neither are still baptized?

The priest I spoke with seemed to give me the impression that this would apply to my husband’s first marriage as neither he nor his wife were baptized Christians. However, I thought this would only be the case if he were now a Catholic, but had been unbaptized at the time of his marriage. He’s still not baptized so I’m a little confused.

It didn’t really all sink in when I was talking with the priest as there was a lot to digest.

I think Pauline is for one who becomes Catholic. However, there is also a Petrine, Favor of the Faith, Privilege which probably applies here.

I had a similar case where the husband is Muslim and had been previously married. The current wife wished to become Catholic

Petrine is a bit more complicated than Pauline. It must be granted by the Pope. But a few years back, at least, they were going rather smoothly if all the paperwork was in order. [Rome can be picky on the details.] They were saying they could do it in three months That seems to mean six months ].

 

[smv71]

Joe Kelley - Could you please tell me where you heard that Petrine Prvileges were being granted in 6 months (with all things being in order, of course)? Does this apply under the new pope? I am asking b/c my boyfriend and I are beginning the annulment process for a brief marriage he was involved in 16 years ago at age 21. I am Catholic and he is nonbaptized. I have been trying to find out how long these take and how hard they are to have granted. Thanks for your help!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The information from our diocesan Tribunal a few years back. I was directing our RCIA program at that time, but have since had to cut back for age and health and am not longer active in it. I haven’t heard of any recent cases.

 

[Jea9]

I am currently working on my Petrine Privelege paperwork. The Pauline privelege is for when the marriage was between two unbaptized individuals. I do not know if they are granted when one is still unbaptized. Petrine privelege is when one was baptized Christian and one was not. This is not granted if the person requesting the privelege is going to be marrying another unbaptized person. I was unbaptized and my ex husband was baptized Lutheran. Now after becoming Catholic I am trying to get this paperwork in order. I really recommend you calling the Diocesan Tribunal yourself and see if you can talk to someone who has assisted with both cases so that they can best assist you. I’ve worked with two different pastors who did not know the best way to assist me since they had never helped with Pauline or Petrine privelege.

Oh, and I was told it was 6-8 months but that it won’t be granted until/unless I have an engagement or a religious order I desire to be part of

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I think Pauline is for one who becomes Catholic. However, there is also a Petrine, Favor of the Faith, Privilege which probably applies here.

I had a similar case where the husband is Muslim and had been previously married. The current wife wished to become Catholic

Petrine is a bit more complicated than Pauline. It must be granted by the Pope. But a few years back, at least, they were going rather smoothly if all the paperwork was in order. [Rome can be picky on the details.] They were saying they could do it in three months That seems to mean six months ].

The Petrine privilege applies to a non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised
party and an unbaptised party.

The Pauline privilege is granted when one party of a natural marriage between two un-Baptized persons, wishes to seek Baptism and Marry a Catholic.

 

[Seatuck]

The marriage does not have to be non consummated.Why do you think that?

From the Diocese of Chicago website.

39. What is the “Pauline Privilege”?
The Pauline Privilege is a dissolution of marriage in which both parties to a previous marriage were non-baptized throughout the entire duration of their married life. It can be requested when one of the parties either wishes Christian baptism or has been baptized Christian and the other party remains unbaptized. These cases remain here in the Chicago Tribunal, and are decided by the Archbishop of Chicago.
40. What is the “Petrine Privilege”?
A Petrine Privilege or Privilege of the Faith is a dissolution of marriage in which at least one of the parties to a previous marriage was non-baptized throughout the entire duration of their married life. If the petitioner is the non-baptized party or was baptized in another Christian church, he or she must either wish to be baptized or received into the Catholic Church, or seek to marry a baptized, practicing Catholic. If the petitioner is a baptized Catholic who was married to a non-baptized person, he or she must either wish to enter into marriage with a baptized Christian, or promise to enter marriage with a baptized Christian in the future. Privilege of the Faith cases involve a special petition to the Holy Father and are decided in Rome.

archchicago.org/departments/tribunal/faq.shtm#fourty

Guideline to determine what type of anullment case is needed.

diocs.org/CPC/Tribunal/Decision_matrix.pdf

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The marriage does not have to be non consummated.Why do you think that?

From the Diocese of Chicago website.

39. What is the “Pauline Privilege”?
The Pauline Privilege is a dissolution of marriage in which both parties to a previous marriage were non-baptized throughout the entire duration of their married life. It can be requested when one of the parties either wishes Christian baptism or has been baptized Christian and the other party remains unbaptized. These cases remain here in the Chicago Tribunal, and are decided by the Archbishop of Chicago.
40. What is the “Petrine Privilege”?
A Petrine Privilege or Privilege of the Faith is a dissolution of marriage in which at least one of the parties to a previous marriage was non-baptized throughout the entire duration of their married life. If the petitioner is the non-baptized party or was baptized in another Christian church, he or she must either wish to be baptized or received into the Catholic Church, or seek to marry a baptized, practicing Catholic. If the petitioner is a baptized Catholic who was married to a non-baptized person, he or she must either wish to enter into marriage with a baptized Christian, or promise to enter marriage with a baptized Christian in the future. Privilege of the Faith cases involve a special petition to the Holy Father and are decided in Rome.

archchicago.org/departments/tribunal/faq.shtm#fourty

Guideline to determine what type of anullment case is needed.

diocs.org/CPC/Tribunal/Decision_matrix.pdf

Because of this:

Can. 1141 A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any
human power or by any cause other than death.

I was taught that the Petrine privilege was based in this canon:

Can. 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised
party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at
the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

The Pauline is based in this and following:

Can. 1143~1 In virtue of the pauline privilege, a marriage entered into by two unbaptised
persons is dissolved in favour of the faith of the party who received baptism, by the very
fact that a new marriage is contracted by that same party, provided the unbaptised party
departs.

I would love an explaination of how the #40 version does not conflict with Canon 1141?

 

[Seatuck]

Because of this:

Can. 1141 A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any
human power or by any cause other than death.

I was taught that the Petrine privilege was based in this canon:

Can. 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised
party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at
the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

The Pauline is based in this and following:

Can. 1143~1 In virtue of the pauline privilege, a marriage entered into by two unbaptised
persons is dissolved in favour of the faith of the party who received baptism, by the very
fact that a new marriage is contracted by that same party, provided the unbaptised party
departs.

I would love an explaination of how the #40 version does not conflict with Canon 1141?

According to Michael Smith Foster’s book Annulment The Wedding That Was indissolubility is not absolute. Such a marriage cannot be dissolved by the will of the parties, the state but in certain circumstances may be dissolved by the Church. He references 1 Cor 7:12-15 He says that a good and natural marriage may be dissolved “in favor of the faith” of the Catholic as an acceptable pastoral solution. Not seeing any church documents but I’m almost certain I heard Ed Peters explain something similiar on Catholic Answers.

 

[Seatuck]

Here’s a good overview on what is required-

archdiocese.la/prayer/sacraments/tribunal/ministers/favor.html

I wonder if we can find Instruction Potestas Ecclesiae of April 30, 2001 translated in English or if it is still confidential.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Here’s a good overview on what is required-

archdiocese.la/prayer/sacraments/tribunal/ministers/favor.html

I wonder if we can find Instruction Potestas Ecclesiae of April 30, 2001 translated in English or if it is still confidential.

That is interesting. Maybe I will have a chance to print it and read carefully after I return on the 23rd. It is basically saying that a non-sacramental consumated Marriage isn’t really a valid Marriage?

 

[Seatuck]

That is interesting. Maybe I will have a chance to print it and read carefully after I return on the 23rd. It is basically saying that a non-sacramental consumated Marriage isn’t really a valid Marriage?

I don’t think its saying that. I think it’s saying that in some cases such a marriage may be dissolved.

Favor cases are not declarations of marriage nullity. Rather, they are acts of papal authority to set aside the binding force of a valid and sacred but non-sacramental union. This is done to “favor” someone’s faith, either the faith of a person who wishes to receive baptism and enter the Catholic Church, or the fuller practice of the faith of a Catholic who wishes to marry in the Catholic Church or to convalidate a current union in the Church.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I don’t think its saying that. I think it’s saying that in some cases such a marriage may be dissolved.

Favor cases are not declarations of marriage nullity. Rather, they are acts of papal authority to set aside the binding force of a valid and sacred but non-sacramental union. This is done to “favor” someone’s faith, either the faith of a person who wishes to receive baptism and enter the Catholic Church, or the fuller practice of the faith of a Catholic who wishes to marry in the Catholic Church or to convalidate a current union in the Church.

The conflict is the Canon says a “Valid Marriage”, it does not say “a Valid Sacramental Marriage” that is Ratified and Consumated, CANNOT be dissolved by ANYONE including the Pope? I was taught that the Church holds that once a valid Marriage involving a Baptized Christian is Consumated, no one can dissolve it for any reason. I don’t see qualifiers in the Scripture “What God has joined”? Even Chist says what Moses did was not right, it wasn’t so from the beginning and all those were non-Sacramental Marriages.

 

[Seatuck]

The conflict is the Canon says a “Valid Marriage”, it does not say “a Valid Sacramental Marriage” that is Ratified and Consumated, CANNOT be dissolved by ANYONE including the Pope? I was taught that the Church holds that once a valid Marriage involving a Baptized Christian is Consumated, no one can dissolve it for any reason. I don’t see qualifiers in the Scripture “What God has joined”? Even Chist says what Moses did was not right, it wasn’t so from the beginning and all those were non-Sacramental Marriages.

I’m thinking you need to consult a canon lawyer for the explanation. I don’t understand it through and through. Canon Law isn’t always strictly interpreted the way we read it in English, for one thing. There is a much deeper understanding to this topic with areas called internal indissolubility and external indissolubility etc. Not sure this stuff is available to the typical layperson.

 

[cameron_lansing]

A small point of terminology should assist your discussion in regard to canon 1141.

The word “ratum” refers to a sacramental marriage, i.e., both were baptized at the time of valid consent, or became so during the the marriage.

See canon 1061§1:

A valid marriage between baptized persons is called ratified only if it has not been consummated;

it is called ratified and consummated if the parties have performed between themselves in a human manner the conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children, to which marriage is ordered by its very nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

A small point of terminology should assist your discussion in regard to canon 1141.

The word “ratum” refers to a sacramental marriage, i.e., both were baptized at the time of valid consent, or became so during the the marriage.

See canon 1061§1:

A valid marriage between baptized persons is called ratified only if it has not been consummated;

it is called ratified and consummated if the parties have performed between themselves in a human manner the conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children, to which marriage is ordered by its very nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

The word “ratum” refers to a sacramental marriage, i.e., both were baptized at the time of valid consent, or became so during the marriage.

Ok so the Latin (canon 1141) does actually say “a Sacramental and Consummated Marriage…”

A Ratified Marriage requires both to have been Baptized or have received Baptism at a later time.

So then there is no conflict. Pauline - is both un-Baptized. Petrine - one Baptized the other not.

If both were Baptized at the time or at some time after, and it was consummated, it cannot be dissolved, if valid.

A Marriage is not dissolved if found invalid because no Marriage ever took place in the first place.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

From the CLSA’s New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:

[on c. 1142] “A valid marriage between two baptized persons or between a baptized and an unbaptized person can be dissolved if it has not been consummated by an act of sexual intercourse performed in a human manner.* The disollution is effected only by the personal intervention of the Roman Pontiff.”

The commentary goes on to list examples of just causes for invoking the ‘Petrine Privilege.’

*In the present discipline, the marriages of the unbaptized, whether consummated or not, can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff in favor of the faith.

[on c. 1143] "The essential conditiosn for teh application of teh Pauline privilege are:
a) a marriage entered into by two unbaptized persons;
b) the subsequent baptism of one and onlyu one of hte spouses, and
c) the “departure” of the still unbaptized spouse

If all three of these conditions are met, the newly baptized spouse may enter a new marriage. The original marriage bond is dissolved not by the intervention of ecclesiastical authority as in the case of a ratified but unconsummated marriage, but by the second marriage. The only role of ecclesiastical authority in the operation of the Pauline privilege is to verify that the conditions for its application have been met."

It’s a little more complicated because it must be determined whether the unbaptized party really “departed” or was somehow driven away - the privilege only applies if, put roughly, it is not the Christian’s fault that the two couldn’t live in peace after the conversion.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

From the CLSA’s New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:

[on c. 1142] “A valid marriage between two baptized persons or between a baptized and an unbaptized person can be dissolved if it has not been consummated by an act of sexual intercourse performed in a human manner.* The disollution is effected only by the personal intervention of the Roman Pontiff.”

The commentary goes on to list examples of just causes for invoking the ‘Petrine Privilege.’

*In the present discipline, the marriages of the unbaptized, whether consummated or not, can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff in favor of the faith.

[on c. 1143] "The essential conditiosn for teh application of teh Pauline privilege are:
a) a marriage entered into by two unbaptized persons;
b) the subsequent baptism of one and onlyu one of hte spouses, and
c) the “departure” of the still unbaptized spouse

If all three of these conditions are met, the newly baptized spouse may enter a new marriage. The original marriage bond is dissolved not by the intervention of ecclesiastical authority as in the case of a ratified but unconsummated marriage, but by the second marriage. The only role of ecclesiastical authority in the operation of the Pauline privilege is to verify that the conditions for its application have been met."

It’s a little more complicated because it must be determined whether the unbaptized party really “departed” or was somehow driven away - the privilege only applies if, put roughly, it is not the Christian’s fault that the two couldn’t live in peace after the conversion.

What is difficult for me is:

The canon says:[on c. 1142] “A valid marriage between two baptized persons or between a baptized and an unbaptized person can be dissolved if it has not been consummated by an act of sexual intercourse performed in a human manner.* The disollution is effected only by the personal intervention of the Roman Pontiff.”

The the commentary from CLSA says:

*In the present discipline, the marriages of the unbaptized, whether consummated or not, can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff in favor of the faith.

They appear to conflict. Does CLSA have the authority to essentially change the wording of the Canon?

 

[cameron_lansing]

What is difficult for me is:

The canon says:[on c. 1142] “A valid marriage between two baptized persons or between a baptized and an unbaptized person can be dissolved if it has not been consummated by an act of sexual intercourse performed in a human manner.* The disollution is effected only by the personal intervention of the Roman Pontiff.”

The the commentary from CLSA says:

*In the present discipline, the marriages of the unbaptized, whether consummated or not, can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff in favor of the faith.

They appear to conflict. Does CLSA have the authority to essentially change the wording of the Canon?

It’s not an attempt to change any wording (which is in Latin anyway), but merely a footnote reference (n. 30 on page 1363) in one topic (non consummation, or dispensatio super rato) to a second topic (dissolution in favorem fidei). Both effectively dissolve the bond by an exercise of papal power. The commentary just wants to alert the reader to what is common to the notions and what distinguishes them.

Be aware though that the “present discipline” was Ut notum est at the time of the commentary but has been replaced by more recent norms.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

What is difficult for me is:

The canon says:[on c. 1142] “A valid marriage between two baptized persons or between a baptized and an unbaptized person can be dissolved if it has not been consummated by an act of sexual intercourse performed in a human manner.* The disollution is effected only by the personal intervention of the Roman Pontiff.”

The the commentary from CLSA says:

*In the present discipline, the marriages of the unbaptized, whether consummated or not, can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff in favor of the faith.

They appear to conflict. Does CLSA have the authority to essentially change the wording of the Canon?

No, there is no conflict. The quote from the commentary covers “the marriages of the unbaptized,” by which is meant “marriages in which both parties are unbaptized.” If one party is baptized at the time of the marriage, it can only be dissolved if unconsummated. Since the marriages of the unbaptized are valid but not sacramental, however, the pope also has the ability to dissolve consummated marriages (just as the Pauline privilege does on its own).