Converts to Catholicism Excluded from Participating as Sponsors? Feedback Please

[Ean_Fanaiochta]

As announced recently in a local church, our Diocese is transitioning to an earlier age for Conformation which will occur when a child is in second or third grade. The church’s announcement about this, and about selecting sponsors, included the following:

"Most parents are aware that we will not have 1st Eucharist for our 2nd
grade this year. This is because our Bishop has decided to change
the order of the Sacraments of Initiation to a more ancient and
original process. So that everyone can have a better understanding,
we will be trying to answer some of the more common questions. If
anyone has questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deacon…
What are the requirements to be a Sponsor?
Sponsors must be:
• Ordinarily at least 16 years old, but exceptions can be made.
• A fully initiated Catholic (They must have been baptized,
confirmed, and received their First Holy Communion –
copies of certificates are not required).
• Practicing their Catholic faith (if they are married, they must
have been married in a Catholic Church).
• Willing to support the parents and this child in his/her
spiritual life. "

My interpretation of the announcement is that converts to Catholicism who married prior to conversion would not be permitted to serve as Sponsors. Is this the common view in the United States? Is there anyone who can explain the rationale behind it? Thanks.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I suspect the marriage rule would only actually apply to those married Catholics who were bound by that rule at the time of their wedding would be barred. I suspect that someone who converted after marriage would be fine.

 

[po18guy]

1. Ask Father.
2. Have your marriage convalidated.
3. Obey the Bishop.

 

[Horton]

These are the standard requirements for sponsors in the code of canon law. The marriage requirement does not exclude converts, it only means that if married, that marriage must be a sacramental Catholic marriage. If a convert is married and that marriage is recognized by the Church as a valid sacramental marriage, that convert is able to be a sponsor. If the convert is in an irregular union, then he/she is not eligible to be a sponsor. The same rule applies to a cradle Catholic.

 

[DisorientingSneeze]

My interpretation of the announcement is that converts to Catholicism who married prior to conversion would not be permitted to serve as Sponsors

I would not interpret it that way. If you were Catholic at the time of your marriage it would apply. If you were not, it would not.

ETA: additionally they might accept proof of convalidation for Catholics, but they would want to present more rigorous standards up front and then discuss reasonable exceptions individually.

 

[1ke]

My interpretation of the announcement is that converts to Catholicism who married prior to conversion would not be permitted to serve as Sponsors.

Your interpretation is not correct. You are misunderstanding a generalization, one that is poorly worded and not really thinking about “converts” per se. A couple must be validly married, which converts who were validly married prior to conversion are.

Is this the common view in the United States?

It is not common anywhere, because fully initiated converts can most certainly be sponsors.

Is there anyone who can explain the rationale behind it?

This is simply a misunderstanding.

 

[1ke]

Have your marriage convalidated.

NOOOOO!!!

Non-Catholics who are validly married prior to conversion do not convalidate their marriages. They are valid marriages.

 

[Bushum]

I agree with this. We had our marriage convalidated the same day as our confirmation. We are now married in the Catholic Church.

 

[1ke]

These are the standard requirements for sponsors in the code of canon law

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

Can. 874 §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a person must:

1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;

3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;

5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

 

[jrgmercado]

Being in a irregular union could fall under number 4.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This means that they must be in a valid marriage according to the Church. I am a convert who validly married before our conversion.

If a convert is married and that marriage is recognized by the Church as a valid sacramental marriage, that convert is able to be a sponsor.

Or a valid natural marriage.

 

[angel12]

My interpretation of the announcement is that converts to Catholicism who married prior to conversion would not be permitted to serve as Sponsors.

That’s quite a stretch.

 

[TheLittleLady]

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

 

[acanonlawyer]

That’s quite a stretch.

I don’t know…maybe. The misleading (at best) statement in the OP lends itself to incorrect conclusions and way too many Catholics think only marriages that take place in a Catholic church are valid.

Dan

 

[po18guy]

Indeed we know that the Church presumes marriages to be valid, unless investigation reveals otherwise. However, if convalidation can correct this situation, or if it is a simple missstatement or misunderstanding, it is simple enough to resolve.

Kindly note the “ifs”

 

[Gorgias]

Your interpretation is not correct. You are misunderstanding a generalization, one that is poorly worded and not really thinking about “converts” per se. A couple must be validly married, which converts who were validly married prior to conversion are.

This!

Well, “this”, with the caveat that a marriage outside the Church between a Catholic and a non-Catholic (who later converted) isn’t necessarily a valid marriage according to Church law.

As others have mentioned: talk to your priest.

One would hope that, as part of the process for a convert’s entry into full communion with the Church, the question of any regularization of their marriage that might be necessary would have been addressed. (Sadly, that’s not always the case.) However, if you bring it to your pastor’s attention now – just as the question of whether all is according to Hoyle and whether you’re eligible to be a sponsor – you should be able to get a good answer. One recommendation, though: don’t take the word of whoever happens to pick up the phone at the parish office. Ask that the pastor or his designee in the matters (sometimes, a deacon; sometimes, another staff member) looks into it for you and assures you that you’re all set.

Non-Catholics who are validly married prior to conversion do not convalidate their marriages. They are valid marriages.

Right. But, the OP didn’t specify that both he and his spouse are converts.

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

3/ be a Catholic who … leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

Sure it does. Implicitly, though: someone who is married invalidly is not “a Catholic who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on”.

Being in a irregular union could fall under number 4.

Number 3, not 4. There’s no “canonical penalty” for being in an invalid marriage.

The misleading (at best) statement in the OP lends itself to incorrect conclusions and way too many Catholics think only marriages that take place in a Catholic church are valid.

This!

Indeed we know that the Church presumes marriages to be valid

No. Marriage enjoys the favor of the law, without a doubt. However, if a couple doesn’t even attempt to contract a valid marriage (for example, if a couple that includes at least one Catholic doesn’t approach their priest for guidance or who contracts marriage civilly outside the Church’s requirements), then “favor of the law” does not apply.

 

[1ke]

Well, “this”, with the caveat that a marriage outside the Church between a Catholic and a non-Catholic (who later converted) isn’t necessarily a valid marriage according to Church law.

Please stop correcting statements I make, that are in fact correct already.

I stated that a couple who was validly married prior to a convert’s conversion are validly married. This is true, no caveats.

Right. But, the OP didn’t specify that both he and his spouse are converts.

1ke:

Again, I’d appreciate it if you would stop trying to correct something that is actually already correct.

I said: Non-Catholics who are validly married prior to conversion do not convalidate their marriages. They are validly married.

This statement is TRUE, regardless of whether the non-Catholic who converts is married to a Catholic or a non-Catholic, and whether one or both people convert in the case of two non-Catholics. In other words-- true without needing a caveat.

Sure it does.

No. It does not. There is no canon with respect to marriage of sponsors. And the statement I was replying to asserts that what the OP posted are the canonical requirements for a sponsor. They are not. There certainly is no canon that states, “if they are married, they must have been married in a Catholic Church”.

 

[Gorgias]

I stated that a couple who was validly married prior to a convert’s conversion are validly married. This is true , no caveats.

True, but do you think that’s significantly more clear to someone who’s already confused, given the original announcement that they referenced?

Again, I’d appreciate it if you would stop trying to correct something that is actually already correct.

Again, I’m sure the OP would appreciate it if we were painstakingly clear and detailed. . You’re not wrong, per se, but that’s not our goal, right? I’m just making sure we’re covering all bases and providing all the info to the best of our abilities. (And yes, I too have had to deal with folks who were acting on half-truths and misunderstood assertions. Just trying to avoid that, here.)

This statement is TRUE, regardless of whether the non-Catholic who converts is married to a Catholic or a non-Catholic, and whether one or both people convert in the case of two non-Catholics. In other words-- true without needing a caveat.

You realize that you just provided the caveat… right?

There certainly is no canon that states, “if they are married, they must have been married in a Catholic Church”.

Psst… if they’re invalidly married, they’re not living a life of faith according to the Church. If it tweaks you that someone corrects you, then my apologies. Still… it’s important that we speak the truth. All of it. In charity, and with disregard to who’s speaking the truth.

 

[phil19034]

My interpretation of the announcement is that converts to Catholicism who married prior to conversion would not be permitted to serve as Sponsors. Is this the common view in the United States? Is there anyone who can explain the rationale behind it? Thanks.

No, that’s not a correct understanding of that phrase.

They mean that you “must be married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.” Not that your wedding must have physically taken place inside a Catholic Church.

I pray this helps.

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

No. Marriage enjoys the favor of the law, without a doubt. However, if a couple doesn’t even attempt to contract a valid marriage (for example, if a couple that includes at least one Catholic doesn’t approach their priest for guidance or who contracts marriage civilly outside the Church’s requirements), then “favor of the law” does not apply.

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

I seem to be drowning today, so I’m out.