Do you think RCIA needs reform?

[lak611]

The “same outcome” is that they’re clear of any impediments that they had, to come to the Sacraments.

There is no way that anyone who still has their impediment, can come to the Sacraments, and it really doesn’t matter what the impediment is, or what the remedy for it is - if the remedy has not yet been applied, then they can’t come to the Sacraments (including Confession or Baptism), which means that they cannot yet become Catholic.

Would there be any differences regarding prior marriages, annulments and joining the Church if the person was a non-Christian (catechumen, rather than candidate)? Would annulment be needed if he or she was not baptized and not ever married to another Christian?

 

[otjm]

Catholics can’t go to Confession until they receive their Declarations of Nullity; why would it be different for converts?

I do not know of any Church law that forbids a Catholic in an irregular marriage situation from going to Reconcilliation. The Church, as I understand it, allows them to go to Rencocilliation, and they can be admitted to Communion after that (presuming there is no issue of scandal) if they live as brother and sister until such time as an annulment is granted (and convalidation of their marriage), or permanently if one is denied. I may be wrong about this; but I would ask for some specific rule in Canon law, or some other official pronouncement to the contrary if I am.

First Reconciliation is their first action as a new Catholic - once they have done that, there is no turning back; they are now Catholic.

That I am not sure about, however, I have never had to deal with the issue. Our candidates go to Reconcilliation close to Holy Saturday, and I have not had one go and then freeze up about Saturday.

Yes, that’s true. Which reminds me of another reform I’d like to see. I think the Candidates should make their Profession of Faith before they go to First Reconciliation, instead of afterwards. (The priest who brought me into the Church had us recite the Apostles’ Creed before he would hear our First Confessions - at the time, I didn’t understand why, but as soon as I read what you wrote, it suddenly “clicked” that that was the reason why.)

That, however, doesn’t work too well with the idea that they officially join the Church on Holy Saturday night when they make their profession of faith.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I have a question for all Catholics, and those converting to the faith. Do you think RCIA needs to be reformed?

Somewhat broad question. Is there some particular flaw you see in your parish? Have you just recently done it? I came through RCIA in 2004/5 and was confirmed at the Easter vigil in April 2005. I had such a glorious experience in RCIA, that I never left. I am now a Cathecist working in RCIA and walking the journey with new pilgrims to our faith of all backgrounds. Ours is an ever evolving and living program which is carefully watched over and participated in by our pastor. We tie our weekly sessions as much as possible to the liturgical calendar discussing each element before it happens, then reflecting on each event at the session after it happens. We simultaneously use a guide, as well as entertaining ideas from the staff and the cathecumens as well. My only disappointment, if any, is that I think we could use a little more focus on the social teachings and sanctity of life issues. Father tells me he has much more planned for this cycle in that regard, so I guess I won’t even have that to worry about. Maybe I’ll try for a little more focus on magesterium next. In any event, I don’t know about specific “reform”. We could just broaden it a bit to give pilgrims a wider perspective of issues.

Peace,

Steven

 

[StevenFrancis]

I have issues with RCIA, and I’m tempted to say that we should just scrap it and replace it with adult Catechesis, without all the mucking about with the Mass.

Not sure what you mean by the above statement. What kind of “mucking about” with the Mass are you referring to? Not sure I follow you.

I think if we keep it (and it looks like it’s here to stay) there should be a requirement that volunteers who lead RCIA be properly trained in it - at minimum, they should be required to read the Blue Book (the book of the Rites) and be tested on the contents of it (and pass the test with at least an 80%), before being allowed to lead a group. They should also be given solid, orthodox Catechetical materials to work with, training on how to work with adult learners, and be given the name of someone who can mentor them if they have questions.

Your testing program seems a little extreme. In our RCIA, before I could take a group out and discuss the readings with them during dismissal I must have been certified at the Diocese level as a Level One catechist. To run a Thursday night session on a topic, and give a presentation, (which must be approved in advance by the Pastor, who gives about 1/2 the presentations himself), I must be level Two or Three, and demonstrate with my lesson plan submission that I have a firm grasp of the material I am to cover. The Pastor is zealous with the red pencil from what I understand. All material must be from scripture, CCC, or Papal document.

I think obstacles to the proper use of RCIA are that the priest hasn’t got the time to know what’s going on - he considers things like the Rite of Acceptance, the Rite of Welcome, and the Rite of Sending to be impositions on his time - and if the Scrutinies are taking place outside of Year A, he’ll do the prayers, but not the readings, because the readings are not compatible with the readings of the Mass on those days, and he sees his priority as being the congregation (which is doing Year B or Year C, as the case may be); not the members of the RCIA. He says that he hasn’t got time to set up a special Mass for the RCIA, and why bother, since they don’t receive Holy Communion, anyway? (I think he has a good point, quite frankly. Why can’t the Scrutinies be set up so that they fit in with the Church year as-is?)

What is the name of your parish? I think a few prayers are in order here. Nothing like this around here that I’m aware of. Can’t relate.

Everything that is optional usually goes completely by the wayside, or else it gets shortened and stripped down until they might as well not have bothered, because nobody’s got the time or the money to do it up right - for example, I’ve never seen crucifixes or Bibles given out at the Rite of Welcome or the Rite of Acceptance. There is also an option to give Baptismal candles to the Candidates to mark their First Confession (because normally they would have been baptized in a tradition that doesn’t give out Baptismal candles), but I’ve never seen that happen, either.

We do give Bibles, (NAB unfortunately, because of the liturgy. They’d be DR or RSV-CE if given my choice).

Crucifixes is a nice idea! Our Church probably can’t afford them, (since we haven’t even built our Church yet, and just let a couple employees go), but I know that most of us team members and/or sponsors would be willing to buy them. Hey, school teachers buy school supplies all the time. We kind of do the same as cathecists when we need to.

I was a candidate myself, from a Four Square Baptist baptism. No candle. I have to admit, I never even heard of this practice. (Giving Candidates Baptism candles at first confession). Is that appropriate? Is there a ceremony or Rite accompanying this in Mass? Would your confessor give it to you? Lighted? Or to your sponsor? Please tell me more about this.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The “same outcome” is that they’re clear of any impediments that they had, to come to the Sacraments.

There is no way that anyone who still has their impediment, can come to the Sacraments, and it really doesn’t matter what the impediment is, or what the remedy for it is - if the remedy has not yet been applied, then they can’t come to the Sacraments (including Confession or Baptism), which means that they cannot yet become Catholic.

I would refer the issue to an actual canon lawyer however it appears you are dismissing some issues

 

[Phemie]

A lot of people just focus on the Declaration(s) of Nullity, and totally forget about the fact that they still have to get validly married once all the paperwork comes through, and permission is given to remarry.

I don’t believe all will have to remarry. If the first marriage is declared invalid, the second marriage is then presumed to be valid, depending on the circumstances under which it was contracted. The person who’s in a third marriage is presumed to still be married to is first wife. If that first marriage is declared null, he’s then considered to be married to his second wife and must also have that one declared null before the marriage to the third wife is recognized.

If I’m a member of the United Church and remarry in the church after a divorce, when I decide to become Catholic I need to have my first marriage declared invalid. IIRC, my second marriage is then automatically valid since it was approved by my church. I will not need to remarry any more than the United Church member who’s in his/her first marriage would have to or a non-baptized person who married at the courthouse would have to.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

If I’m a member of the United Church and remarry in the church after a divorce, when I decide to become Catholic I need to have my first marriage declared invalid. IIRC, my second marriage is then automatically valid since it was approved by my church. ** I will not need to remarry any more than the United Church member who’s in his/her first marriage would have to or a non-baptized person who married at the courthouse would have to.**

Not really…you would need to have your marriage made Sacramental and to do that you would need to have it Convalidated.

My first marriage was annulled, when I entered the church since I had remarried (2nd time) outside of the Church I had to have my marriage convalidated.

 

[jmcrae]

Would there be any differences regarding prior marriages, annulments and joining the Church if the person was a non-Christian (catechumen, rather than candidate)? Would annulment be needed if he or she was not baptized and not ever married to another Christian?

They’d still need paperwork from the Tribunal to say that they are free of any impediments to the Sacraments, and that their previous marriage was not a natural marriage (since natural marriages are also permanent in the eyes of God), as well as not a Sacramental marriage.

It might be easier to get, because it’s easier to presume that they didn’t understand what a marriage is or that it is supposed to be a permanent arrangement - but they would still need to go through the process. They don’t get a “free pass” to have divorced and remarried just because they were non-Christians.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t believe all will have to remarry. If the first marriage is declared invalid, the second marriage is then presumed to be valid …]

It is only “presumed to be valid” if they get divorced and apply for a Declaration of Nullity. (ie: there is a faint possibility that the marriage could have been valid, and the Tribunal still needs to investigate.)

But before either of them can approach the Sacraments in the Catholic Church, their marriage needs to be made definitely valid (not just the faint possibility that it might be valid) by having a validation ceremony in the Catholic Church.

If I’m a member of the United Church and remarry in the church after a divorce, when I decide to become Catholic I need to have my first marriage declared invalid. IIRC, my second marriage is then automatically valid since it was approved by my church.

No it isn’t, because you were not free to contract a marriage, at the time of the wedding. You can only attempt a second marriage after you have been declared by the Tribunal to be free to do so - not before. Your official wedding date, therefore, will be the date of the convalidation; not the date of the prior wedding ceremony in the United Church of Canada.

 

[otjm]

Not really…you would need to have your marriage made Sacramental and to do that you would need to have it Convalidated.

My first marriage was annulled, when I entered the church since I had remarried (2nd time) outside of the Church I had to have my marriage convalidated.

This makes for an interesting question.

Marriage is a sacrament that is conferred by the parties on each other through their promise, as opposed to the other sacraments that are conferred by the priest (with, of course, the exception of Baptism by anyone intending to do what the Church intends).

Assuming both parties are not Catholic and one of them had a previous marriage, they are not required to follow the form of the Church in having the marriage witnessed by a priest or deacon to be valid. Thus if the previous marriage was declared annulled, would they in fact have to have the marriage convalidated? Or is that only a requirement if one of the parties was Catholic at the time of the second marriage (and thus it would have been invalid, if not granted a dispensation from form, even if there was no prior marriage of either party)?

Where’s a Canon lawyer when you need them?

In any event, we are wandering off topic; before the moderator steps in, perhaps we should return to the issue of “does RCIA need reform?”

 

[byers]

I read somewhere a few years agp and can’t find it now, but I believe it was in a diocesan paper that said that some huge percentage of RCIA graduates, well over 50% are not attending Mass a year later. If this is true there is obviously something very wrong with RCIA.

Obviously that is NOT true of the RCIA graduates on this forum.

The old saying used to be that converts make the best Catholics…but it doesn’t seem to hold true now. Seems there is too much emphasis on intellectual facts about the faith, rather than on the conversion of the heart.

How did converts come into the faith before RCIA?

 

[jmcrae]

I was a candidate myself, from a Four Square Baptist baptism. No candle. I have to admit, I never even heard of this practice. (Giving Candidates Baptism candles at first confession). Is that appropriate? Is there a ceremony or Rite accompanying this in Mass? Would your confessor give it to you? Lighted? Or to your sponsor? Please tell me more about this.

According to the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, this is how First Confession for the previously-baptized is supposed to go:

SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

528 In the early Church, the sacrament of penance was regarded as a “second baptism.” St. Ambrose remarked that the Church "possesses both water and tears: the water of baptism, the tears of penance."1 In the case of the baptized who have completed a period of formation and are ready to complete their initiation, the sacrament of penance may occupy a place similar to the sacrament of baptism for the elect.2

Candidates are encouraged, according to their individual consciences, to make a confession of sins before being received into full communion or completing their initiation.

529 The sacrament of penance may be celebrated according to the Rite of Reconciliation of Several Penitents with Individual Confession and Absolution, or according to the Rite for Reconciliation of Individual Penitents. (A helpful outline for the reconciliation of an individual person is given in Sunday Mass
Book, pages 1114-1115. Other prayers and suggestions are contained on pages 1107, 1117 and 1309-1316.)

530 It is appropriate for the candidates to recite the creed before or after the sacrament of penance. Likewise, it is appropriate for the candidates to be presented with the lighted baptismal candle after the sacrament of penance. Any other rites associated with baptism {ephphetha rite, anointings, and the reception of the white garment) are to be omitted.

Of course, most of the time they are just left on their own to find a priest, and make their own way - we were really lucky that our priest set aside a morning to be with us, pray with us, and help us, as well as to hear our Confessions. He left the parish immediately afterwards to retire, unfortunately.

 

[jmcrae]

How did converts come into the faith before RCIA?

Individual instruction, or else a 24-week course that went by the name “Inquiry Classes.” They were a lot more in-depth than the current understanding of “Inquiry Classes,” though.

 

[homewardbound]

Question: Is it true someone cannot become Catholic if they are living with someone of the opposite sex?

I currently live with my boyfriend, chastely as roommates, because there is really no other option. I first moved in because I was kicked out of school, thus out of the dorms, and had no where else to go. I am disabled, suffer greatly from mental health illness, and currently applying for SSI. I am financially unable to live on my own and if I would move back in with my parents I will be tortured all the time for wanting to be Catholic and would not be able to go to Mass nor join any RCIA. My spiritual growth would stop and mentally, I would have no way to get to therapy or treatment since I cannot drive and my family does not believe in psychology I know living together people will think what they’re going to think, but right now I see no other way. If things would change I would move out, but right now its just not possible.

Does this mean I cannot be confirmed until I move out?

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Question: Is it true someone cannot become Catholic if they are living with someone of the opposite sex?

I currently live with my boyfriend, chastely as roommates, because there is really no other option. I first moved in because I was kicked out of school, thus out of the dorms, and had no where else to go. I am disabled, suffer greatly from mental health illness, and currently applying for SSI. I am financially unable to live on my own and if I would move back in with my parents I will be tortured all the time for wanting to be Catholic and would not be able to go to Mass nor join any RCIA. My spiritual growth would stop and mentally, I would have no way to get to therapy or treatment since I cannot drive and my family does not believe in psychology I know living together people will think what they’re going to think, but right now I see no other way. If things would change I would move out, but right now its just not possible.

Does this mean I cannot be confirmed until I move out?

no

 

[otjm]

I read somewhere a few years agp and can’t find it now, but I believe it was in a diocesan paper that said that some huge percentage of RCIA graduates, well over 50% are not attending Mass a year later. If this is true there is obviously something very wrong with RCIA.

Obviously that is NOT true of the RCIA graduates on this forum.

The old saying used to be that converts make the best Catholics…but it doesn’t seem to hold true now. Seems there is too much emphasis on intellectual facts about the faith, rather than on the conversion of the heart.

How did converts come into the faith before RCIA?

Actually, it seems just the opposite: converts are not being intellectually challenged with the RCIA process that is strictly Lectionary based. While a Lectionary base is good, and will cover main issues (think, Creed) throughout the year, there certainly seems to be evidence that it is not necessarily in and of itself sufficient, or perhaps as complete and informative as it could be.

There are two things that both Candidates and Catechumens need: information and faith building.

One without faith building can end up not much more than a well informed atheist. One without information can end up not much more than a “spiritual” person; someone who blieves there is some sort of God force out there, and that we have some connection to it; but the details are less than clear, and such person is more likely to end up in heretical positions.

It was the liberal end of the spectrum that threw the baby out with the bath water; they were the ones insisting that we needed to get out of a rote, intellectualized approach to religion and build faith through experiences. Sadly, they ended up, for example on the grade school level, with kids acting out parts of Old Testament figures with no clue as to what was going on with Moses or Abraham really, and kids cutting out butterflies to represent the Ressurection. The adult section of catechesis didn’t fair much better.

The intellectual end of the faith should not need much explaining herein; but what is faith building? An example may be from what we do at the dismissal; those being dismissed after the homily go out, and read the Gospel (Now the 3rd time they have heard it this week - once in class, second at Mass), and are asked to share: “what word or phrase jumps out at you?” Then it is read again (now for the 4th time) and they are asked: “what have you seen in this reading that you have not seen before?”. Then a 3rd reading (now 5th this week), and the question “How does this reading call you to change?”.

Ultimately, the Gospels are not about a doctrine; they are about how we respond to the Good News; how we respond to Christ. They should challenge us to change, and that is where faith grows. If we say we have faith, what does that mean in our daily life? 1 John says it better than I can; so before you all decide this is not a good approach, or is not faith building, go read the letter!

As to the drop out rate, I am not sure how accurately it has been measured, but the estimates I have seen are around 50%. Not particularly good news. However, I do not know of any official process of instruction prior to the revival of RCIA, and I think we may be a bit without supporting information to presume that it was so much better “back then”.

 

[jmcrae]

This makes for an interesting question.

Marriage is a sacrament that is conferred by the parties on each other through their promise, as opposed to the other sacraments that are conferred by the priest (with, of course, the exception of Baptism by anyone intending to do what the Church intends).

True. But the marriage only actually takes place if both parties are free to marry, to begin with, free to marry each other (ie: not related by blood), and able to freely consent to the marriage with at least a reasonable understanding of the commitment that they are undertaking.

Assuming both parties are not Catholic and one of them had a previous marriage, they are not required to follow the form of the Church in having the marriage witnessed by a priest or deacon to be valid.

That’s true. They still have to both be free to marry, though.

Thus if the previous marriage was declared annulled, would they in fact have to have the marriage convalidated?

Yes, since at the time of the wedding, one or both of them was not yet free to marry.

 

[otjm]

True. But the marriage only actually takes place if both parties are free to marry, to begin with, free to marry each other (ie: not related by blood), and able to freely consent to the marriage with at least a reasonable understanding of the commitment that they are undertaking.

That’s true. They still have to both be free to marry, though.

Yes, since at the time of the wedding, one or both of them was not yet free to marry.

As I say, I cannot tie it to a specific Code section; I think it is an answer for a Canon lawyer. You may well be right; and as far as a Catholic is concerned, I agree with you. As to non-Catholics, I would like to see a definitive answer.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

As I say, I cannot tie it to a specific Code section; I think it is an answer for a Canon lawyer. You may well be right; and as far as a Catholic is concerned, I agree with you. As to non-Catholics, I would like to see a definitive answer.

I do not think you are off, it causes issues in RCIA every year. We need an official process in which candidates and catechumen receive a review of past invalid marriages and the Team has some way to know when to hold some back until the process is complete. It sounds simple but it is not working. We have some nice honest people wait for years to be confirmed because of annulment requests, while others who obviously appear to have impediments go through the process. It is just like the communion process if they refuse to personally acknowledge the issue the Team has is no means to know. Whether the annulment process was needed, started, or completed. We know of those annulments being processed in our parish but that is only the tip of the iceberg. We see a lot of Non Catholic spouses with a Catholic spouse; we do not have a standard process to see if they had their marriage convalidated.

Btw here is some writing from a lawyer :

*For a person previously married to someone with a prior marriage, provided the Church had not dealt with the prior marriage, a documentary process exists. This is called ligamen, or prior bond. In most cases, one simply documents the prior marriage of the individual with whom one attempted marriage. The local tribunal advises the couple concerning what documents they require and guides them through the process.
If one of the spouses was not baptized during the first marriage, and the lack of baptism can be proven (provided the person applying for this process did not cause the marital breakdown), then a “Privilege of the Faith” case (or “Petrine Privilege” case) can be sent to the Holy See. If the Holy See approves, the non-sacramental marriage may then be dissolved in favor of a new marriage.

If neither of the spouses was baptized during their marriage, and now one of the spouses wishes to become baptized and marry a Catholic, provided one can prove the non-baptism of each former spouse, a Pauline Privilege is possible. In this situation, the diocesan bishop or his lawful representative, having established the non-baptized status of both parties, allows the non-sacramental partnership to be dissolved in favor of the new marriage. Of course, the spouse desiring baptism and the new marriage must first receive baptism.

A Basic Rule

If you are trying to determine whether you need an annulment, these explanations may be helpful. In any case, keep in mind one basic rule as you approach the process: If either you or your intended attempted a previous marriage, be sure to tell your priest. Before you attempt another marriage, the Church must address the previous marriage in some form or another, either by a documentary case, a privilege case, or a formal annulment process. *

 

[jmcrae]

A Basic Rule

If you are trying to determine whether you need an annulment, these explanations may be helpful. In any case, keep in mind one basic rule as you approach the process: If either you or your intended attempted a previous marriage, be sure to tell your priest. Before you attempt another marriage, the Church must address the previous marriage in some form or another, either by a documentary case, a privilege case, or a formal annulment process.

This is exactly the same thing that I was saying earlier - that the remedies in each case may be different, but that, whatever the remedy is, it has to have been applied already, before they can become Catholic.