Baptism and Divorce confusion

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

I posed this question in Ask An Apologist, to no avail thus far, so I hope you will be able to help me with my enquiry.
If a non baptized person marries a baptized person (non Catholic), I understand this is a natural marriage, not sacramental; under normal circumstances this marriage would become sacramental on the baptism of the previously non baptized person. Now the issue is; if the couple are amid divorce proceedings, and the non baptized person was baptized, would it be sacramental, or would this not apply, as the couple would not be participating in marital relations, therefore not ‘consumating’ the sacrament?
Thank you
Pax Vobiscum

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Nun_ofthe_Above:

I posed this question in Ask An Apologist, to no avail thus far, so I hope you will be able to help me with my enquiry.
If a non baptized person marries a baptized person (non Catholic), I understand this is a natural marriage, not sacramental; under normal circumstances this marriage would become sacramental on the baptism of the previously non baptized person. Now the issue is; if the couple are amid divorce proceedings, and the non baptized person was baptized, would it be sacramental, or would this not apply, as the couple would not be participating in marital relations, therefore not ‘consumating’ the sacrament?
Thank you
Pax Vobiscum

A VALID Marriage (M/F) between a validly Baptized person and a non-Baptized person, becomes a Sacrament with the Baptism of the non-Baptized person, providing the Marriage is valid. Divorce proceedings are only a matter of civil law. The Marriage would if valid have been comsumated as a natural union. The “consumation” does not need to happen after the Marriage becomes Sacramental.

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

Br. Rich,
Thank you for your reply. So assuming this marriage is valid, then the couple would have to obtain their civil divorce, and then a dissolution of marriage from the Church, before the non baptized party could get baptized, so as not to cause complication with regard to any future relationships?
Thanks again.
Pax

 

[SMHW]

Nun_ofthe_Above:

Br. Rich,
Thank you for your reply. So assuming this marriage is valid, then the couple would have to obtain their civil divorce, and then a dissolution of marriage from the Church, before the non baptized party could get baptized, so as not to cause complication with regard to any future relationships?
Thanks again.
Pax

I don’t think that the marital situation should keep the unbaptized person from being baptized as long as the person remains living as if unmarried. However it would be an issue if the person eventually plans to marry.

 

[pazdziernik]

Nun_ofthe_Above:

Br. Rich,
Thank you for your reply. So assuming this marriage is valid, then the couple would have to obtain their civil divorce, and then a dissolution of marriage from the Church, before the non baptized party could get baptized, so as not to cause complication with regard to any future relationships?
Thanks again.
Pax

Wow. What an interesting question! The Church does recognize non-sacramental marriages (natural marriages) as valid. The Church can not “dissolve a marriage”, except for the rare case of the Petrine Priviledge reserved to the Pope. The Church can only declare a marriage null from the beginning (that a marriage never actually took place.) The marriage is preassumed valid until the Church declares otherwise. I’m not sure if this declaration applies to natural marriages in addition to sacramental marriages. I suspect that, all thing being equal, it does because any situation that changes after the marriage (e.g. baptism of one of the parties) is not going to affect the validity of the original marriage per se. Baptism at a later date will affect the sacramentality of the marriage, not its validity. The Pauline Priviledge is probably not going to apply in this case because the Pauline Priviledge is for two non-baptized persons and one is baptized and the other partner refuses to “live in peace” or something like that.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Nun_ofthe_Above:

Br. Rich,
Thank you for your reply. So assuming this marriage is valid, then the couple would have to obtain their civil divorce, and then a dissolution of marriage from the Church, before the non baptized party could get baptized, so as not to cause complication with regard to any future relationships?
Thanks again.
Pax

This is very complicated. A valid and consumated Marriage cannot be disolved. It could be declared Null if something is found lacking for validity. A valid natural union between two un-Baptized persons can be disolved if one received Baptism and the other is hostle to the Faith.

 

[Catholic2003]

One of the questions underlying the scenario from your post is: At what point in a failed marriage between a baptized party and a non-baptized party does the baptism of the non-baptized party no longer make the marriage sacramental?

The answer is: When the consent that was essential to creating the marriage no longer exists.

As a practical matter, the Catholic tribunal will typically use the separation date to determine this, although it certainly can take other evidence into consideration. For example, sexual relations between the parties would tend to suggest that the marital consent is still present. A final divorce would be an strong indication that the marital consent is completely gone.

 

[pazdziernik]

Catholic2003:

One of the questions underlying the scenario from your post is: At what point in a failed marriage between a baptized party and a non-baptized party does the baptism of the non-baptized party no longer make the marriage sacramental?

The answer is: When the consent that was essential to creating the marriage no longer exists.

As a practical matter, the Catholic tribunal will typically use the separation date to determine this, although it certainly can take other evidence into consideration. For example, sexual relations between the parties would tend to suggest that the marital consent is still present. A final divorce would be an strong indication that the marital consent is completely gone.

Consent at the time of marriage is always the key. Of course other factors than consent are required as well. We’re preassuming that the Catholic party received the proper dispensations and permissions and so forth at the time of the natural marriage. Are you saying that for a natural marriage to become sacramental upon the baptism of the non-baptized party the consent still needs to be present? In other words, it does not always automatically become sacramental?

One should receive the Sacrament of Baptism regardless of a marital situation. This is at the heart of this case from my read.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

pazdziernik:

Consent at the time of marriage is always the key. Of course other factors than consent are required as well. We’re preassuming that the Catholic party received the proper dispensations and permissions and so forth at the time of the natural marriage. Are you saying that for a natural marriage to become sacramental upon the baptism of the non-baptized party the consent still needs to be present? In other words, it does not always automatically become sacramental?

One should receive the Sacrament of Baptism regardless of a marital situation. This is at the heart of this case from my read.

A marriage between a Baptized person and a non-Baptized person always becomes Sacramental at the moment of the Baptism of the non-Baptized, as long as the Marriage is itself valid. The Baptism has no bearing on the validity of the Marriage. It does not have any effect on the determination of the possible nullity of the Marriage.

If the natural union is valid then the Baptism makes the natural union a Sacramental Marriage. If the natural union is not valid then the Baptism has no effect.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Br. Rich SFO:

A marriage between a Baptized person and a non-Baptized person always becomes Sacramental at the moment of the Baptism of the non-Baptized, as long as the Marriage is itself valid. The Baptism has no bearing on the validity of the Marriage. It does not have any effect on the determination of the possible nullity of the Marriage.

If the natural union is valid then the Baptism makes the natural union a Sacramental Marriage. If the natural union is not valid then the Baptism has no effect.

A non-sacramental marriage can be dissolved by Petrine Privilege, in favor of the Faith. However, if the unbaptized party is baptized the marriage becomes sacramental and the Privilege is no longer available.

 

[pazdziernik]

Joe Kelley:

A non-sacramental marriage can be dissolved by Petrine Privilege, in favor of the Faith. However, if the unbaptized party is baptized the marriage becomes sacramental and the Privilege is no longer available.

This applies to a sacramental marriage as well:

Canon 1142 :“For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consumated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.”

Consumation is the key in the Petrine Privilege not sacramentality.

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

Thank you everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut; you have helped me enormously! all.

Pax Vobiscum,

 

[Catholic2003]

pazdziernik:

Are you saying that for a natural marriage to become sacramental upon the baptism of the non-baptized party the consent still needs to be present? In other words, it does not always automatically become sacramental?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

 

[Catholic2003]

Joe Kelley:

A non-sacramental marriage can be dissolved by Petrine Privilege, in favor of the Faith. However, if the unbaptized party is baptized the marriage becomes sacramental and the Privilege is no longer available.

From Marriage Questions and Answers with Father Dan:

What is a “Petrine Privilege (or the Favor of the Faith)?

The favor of the faith or the “Petrine Privilege” is used when a Christian marries an unbaptized person and divorces; with the Christian party (or the intended new spouse of the Christian party) not being the party at fault. The Christian party may ask for the dispensation for the favor of the faith in order to re-marry. The other party is interviewed as to their unbaptized status during the common life (as is true also with the Pauline Privilege). The case is sent to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and, if positive, to the Holy Father to grant the dispensation in favor of the faith.

Notice that the Petrine privilege still applies if the the unbaptized party receives baptism after the parties’ common marital life is over. Thus, such baptism does not make the marriage sacramental, because then the Pope would be dissolving sacramental marriages with the Petrine privilege, which clearly cannot be.

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

Catholic2003:

From Marriage Questions and Answers with Father Dan:

Notice that the Petrine privilege still applies if the the unbaptized party receives baptism after the parties’ common marital life is over. Thus, such baptism does not make the marriage sacramental, because then the Pope would be dissolving sacramental marriages with the Petrine privilege, which clearly cannot be.

Catholic2003,
Thank you for this wonderful post!
Could you please clarify if this document is ‘saying’ it would be prudent for the civil divorce to be finalized first, thus providing possible proof that their common life was over, and making it possible for the baptized person to apply for a dispensation in favour of the faith??

 

[pazdziernik]

Catholic2003:

Notice that the Petrine privilege still applies if the the unbaptized party receives baptism after the parties’ common marital life is over. Thus, such baptism does not make the marriage sacramental, because then the Pope would be dissolving sacramental marriages with the Petrine privilege, which clearly cannot be.

The Petrine privilege can indeed dissolve a sacramental marriage. It is extremely rare but can happen in theory so it is provided for in canon law.

Canon 1141: " A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause except death."

Canon 1142 :“For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consumated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.”

Consumation makes a sacramental marriage indisoulable. The first part of the Petrine privilege applies to the rare case in which the sacramental marriage was not consumated. I’m not sure how common the second part of the Petrine privilege may be. Nor am I sure what “just causes” would allow for it.

 

[pazdziernik]

Nun_ofthe_Above:

Catholic2003,
Thank you for this wonderful post!
Could you please clarify if this document is ‘saying’ it would be prudent for the civil divorce to be finalized first, thus providing possible proof that their common life was over, and making it possible for the baptized person to apply for a dispensation in favour of the faith??

The Church does not officially require a civil divorce before accepting an annulment petition. I’m not sure about the ecclesial rules in Australia but every diocese in the U.S.A. requires a civil divorce before accepting an annulment petition. This is a practical way of determining that there is no realistic hope of reconciling the parties. This may apply to a dissolution (not annulment) via the Petrine privilege as well. I’m not certain on this point. I suspect that it’s highly likely. Certainly, if the Catholic party is planning to remarry a civil divorce will be needed.

 

[Catholic2003]

Nun_ofthe_Above:

Catholic2003,
Thank you for this wonderful post!
Could you please clarify if this document is ‘saying’ it would be prudent for the civil divorce to be finalized first, thus providing possible proof that their common life was over, and making it possible for the baptized person to apply for a dispensation in favour of the faith??

I don’t have enough experience with the Petrine privilege to give a good answer to this question. In civil no-fault divorces, the end of common life is established via testimony and/or evidence, e.g., start of an apartment rental.

I would think that as long as the person had proof of the end of common life, it is not important that the proof be the divorce itself. But I can imagine there might be some circumstances where holding off on Catholic baptism would be helpful in establishing the Petrine privilege; each person should check with their diocesan tribunal to be sure.

The Petrine privilege takes a long time to process, because it goes to Rome. Many U.S. tribunals try for an annulment first, and then move on to the Petrine privilege only if there aren’t any grounds for an annulment. Another thing to consider is than an annulment can be granted at any time, while the Petrine privilege requires that the person be engaged to a new potential spouse. And if someone has already found a new love while not even divorced yet, it may look a little suspicious.

 

[seaseadisney]

I am so glad to see someone address this issue: I was married 20 years ago to a non-baptized person in the Catholic Church. The priest did not allow me to have a Mass and I understand now why. I did not know nearly as much about my faith then. I thought at that time that the Catholic Church taught to do as your conscience dictated, with the exception, I knew not to marry a divorced person.

My husband came into the Church six years later and was baptized. I am to assume I had a natural marriage and not a sacramental marriage for six years? Wow!

Do I automatically have a sacramental marriage now that he is baptized?

 

[Catholic2003]

seaseadisney:

Do I automatically have a sacramental marriage now that he is baptized?

Yes.