Converts to Catholicism Excluded from Participating as Sponsors? Feedback Please

[Ean_Fanaiochta]

Thank you, everyone, for taking the time to reply. I probably should have included more information. I was focusing on “Practicing their Catholic faith (if they are married, they must
have been married in a Catholic Church)”, specifically that “they must have been married in a Catholic Church.” I’m thinking of a number of people I know, including my husband and myself, who converted to Catholicism from other Christian faith traditions. For example, my husband and I were married years before we became Catholic. We were married in a church wedding, and neither of us had been married before.

In our case, we were told during RCIA that we didn’t have to do anything about our marriage, that it was a Sacramental marriage. However, the statement “they must have been married in a Catholic church” seems to exclude us since becoming Catholic was not on our radar when my husband and I got married.

 

[TheLittleLady]

If a Catholic decides to ignore the Church when they marry, that marriage is irregular and is invalid. No need to presume otherwise. The Tribunal does not investigate any further than baptismal records and marriage license/divorce decree.

If two people marry and neither has any impediment to entering a marriage (they were baptized Catholic, they have been married before and that spouse is alive, etc.), they can enter into a valid natural or valid sacramental (if both are validly baptized non-Catholic Christians) marriage. That is when the Tribunal must investigate the validity should there be a divorce and desire to marry again in the Church.

 

[Ean_Fanaiochta]

This is the original document from the Diocesan website:

https://www.dio.org/uploads/files/quick-reference-for-parish-receptionists.pdf

It includes the statement, “Practicing their Catholic faith (if they are married, they must have been married in a Catholic Church).”

If we decide to pursue this we will ask around here, but I thought someone in these Forums might be familiar with this requirement and be able to give me an explanation. I guess I took “they must have been married in a Catholic Church” very literally.

 

[TheLittleLady]

It is a case where those of us who work for the Church tend to use some “shorthand” or phrases and we forget that others might be confused.

I will bet you my dog (and I love my dog) that the intention is to communicate that people who are married must be in a marriage that is presumed valid by the Church.

 

[1ke]

I’m thinking of a number of people I know, including my husband and myself, who converted to Catholicism from other Christian faith traditions. For example, my husband and I were married years before we became Catholic. We were married in a church wedding, and neither of us had been married before.

You are validly married.

n our case, we were told during RCIA that we didn’t have to do anything about our marriage, that it was a Sacramental marriage.

This is correct.

However, the statement “they must have been married in a Catholic church” seems to exclude us since becoming Catholic was not on our radar when my husband and I got married.

It is bad wording, and you are taking it too literally. It means that if they are married, they must be in a valid marriage.

 

[Horton]

Actually, the code of canon law does not reference marriage.

But marriage does fall under #3

who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on

which applies to a valid marriage, or in other words, not having an irregular union which would place one outside leading a life of faith.

Rather than using that language in my documents for confirmation sponsors I use the language that a sponsor must have been married in the Catholic Church.

 

[Usige]

This is an example of why the office should have a couple of outside eyes do proofreading.

Reminds me of my Canon Law professor… “When in doubt, call the chancery or judicial vicar’s office and save the time of correcting your mistake later on.”

 

[Gorgias]

So, the tribunal assumes them to be invalid ? That makes no sense…

If you make no attempt to have a valid marriage, then no. It’s not presumed to be valid.

specifically that “they must have been married in a Catholic Church.”

Right. That was poor wording on their part. The requirement really is “must be validly married according to the Catholic Church.” If a couple who both are non-Catholic Christian get married, the Church naturally doesn’t require them to be married in a Catholic church building, so their marriage is considered valid (presuming there isn’t any other impediment to their marriage (e.g., one or both were already validly married to someone else, etc)). If one or both of the couple is Catholic, then 99.999% of the time, that usually implies that they married “in a Catholic church building.” So, people generally presume (wrongly) that the requirement is “get married in a Catholic building.”

You are correct – since you both were non-Catholic Christians when you married, and later converted to Catholicism, the Church considers your marriage already sacramental, and therefore, you are not excluded from becoming a sponsor.

Blessings,
G.

 

[TheLittleLady]

. A suggestion is needed here, to have them change their wording to:“ if they are married, the marriage must be valid”

My guess, as this document is aimed at the receptionist, they avoid the term “valid” because that would put the person answering the phone, perhaps a volunteer without training, in the position of explaining validity.

I would have written it “if married, the marriage must be recognized by the Church. For further explanation, visit our diocese webpage at blah blah blah”

 

[Ean_Fanaiochta]

I appreciate all the responses. I emailed a Deacon friend of ours who provided an explanation similar to those of TheLittleLady, Gorgias, and several others above.

I totally get it now!