Do you think RCIA needs reform?

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

It may have been what you ment however it does not appear to be what you said.

I think this is post 149

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.

The information from the lawyer was “be sure to tell your priest. Before you attempt another marriage, the Church must address the previous marriage in some form or another” The lawyer says the Priest not the Tribunal, and lists at least 2 methods which do not involve the Tribunal. Additionally a third method involved a finding the annulment process was not needed. So the lawyer indicates it is not always the Tribunals decision. Additionally I notice you made a declaration about this specific marriage, but you cannot be the Tribunal. I am sure you had good intentions however I bet others who read your comments cannot differentiate your comments from their actual situation.

 

[jmcrae]

It may have been what you ment however it does not appear to be what you said.

I think this is post 149

“You” meaning generically anyone who is in that situation; I was viewing it as a hypothetical. (I’m assuming no one posted their actual marriage details on-line.)

The information from the lawyer was “be sure to tell your priest. Before you attempt another marriage, the Church must address the previous marriage in some form or another” The lawyer says the Priest not the Tribunal, and lists at least 2 methods which do not involve the Tribunal. Additionally a third method involved a finding the annulment process was not needed. So the lawyer indicates it is not always the Tribunals decision. Additionally I notice you made a declaration about this specific marriage, but you cannot be the Tribunal. I am sure you had good intentions however I bet others who read your comments cannot differentiate your comments from their actual situation.

Yes, you always go to the priest first, but he is never the one making the final decision.

He sets up your paperwork for you, and then you go to the Tribunal. You never just show up at the Tribunal on your own accord; your priest sends you.

In some cases, it may be an open-and-shut case, and it only takes a week; in other cases it can take years. But you still have to do the process, either way - just because it’s an open-and-shut case doesn’t mean that the priest gets to make the final decision, nor that you can go ahead and become Catholic without waiting that week to receive the official answer.

But in these cases it can appear to the complainant that the priest made the decision himself, because of how rapidly it was returned, and because they never actually had to make a court appearance. But the reality is that the priest took the information to the Tribunal the same day, received the answer straight away, and then passed it back to the complainant at their next meeting.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

“You” meaning generically anyone who is in that situation; I was viewing it as a hypothetical. (I’m assuming no one posted their actual marriage details on-line.)

Yes, you always go to the priest first, but he is never the one making the final decision.

He sets up your paperwork for you, and then you go to the Tribunal. You never just show up at the Tribunal on your own accord; your priest sends you.

In some cases, it may be an open-and-shut case, and it only takes a week; in other cases it can take years. But you still have to do the process, either way - just because it’s an open-and-shut case doesn’t mean that the priest gets to make the final decision, nor that you can go ahead and become Catholic without waiting that week to receive the official answer.

But in these cases it can appear to the complainant that the priest made the decision himself, because of how rapidly it was returned, and because they never actually had to make a court appearance. But the reality is that the priest took the information to the Tribunal the same day, received the answer straight away, and then passed it back to the complainant at their next meeting.

This simply does not match what the Lawyer wrote:

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. ( for reference see post #159)

 

[jmcrae]

This simply does not match what the Lawyer wrote:

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. ( for reference see post #159)

Sorry - maybe I’m just dense, but I’m not seeing where the parish priest is acting on his own, here. If the diocescan Bishop is not the head of the local Tribunal, then his “lawful representative” is that person - the head of the Tribunal. And they are not sending the petitions for the Petrine or Pauline privilege to the Tourism Office at the Holy See; ( ) they’re sending it to the Roman Tribunal.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Sorry - maybe I’m just dense, but I’m not seeing where the parish priest is acting on his own, here.

And who said he was?

If the diocescan Bishop is not the head of the local Tribunal, then his “lawful representative” is that person - the head of the Tribunal.

The lawyer clearly differentiated the the three different gruops. Additionally, a representative can not be a Tribunal.

And they are not sending the petitions for the Petrine or Pauline privilege to the Tourism Office at the Holy See; ( ) they’re sending it to the Roman Tribunal.

The Holy See has a meaning which is clearly different from Tribunal. Here is a link for you newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm

I noticed the eariler referrence to the canonical lawyer was lost so let me try again to post that catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0044.html

 

[jmcrae]

And who said he was?

You did - or at least it seemed as though you were saying that in certain cases, the person would just go to their priest and he would make the decision, right there on the spot.

The information from the lawyer was “be sure to tell your priest. Before you attempt another marriage, the Church must address the previous marriage in some form or another” The lawyer says the Priest not the Tribunal, and lists at least 2 methods which do not involve the Tribunal.

All of these methods are Marriage Tribunal methods. Courtroom, Holy See, or whatever, it’s all having to do with the laws of marriage in the Church, and all going to persons who have specific authority regarding marital status.

PS: We have wandered quite far from the subject.

The bottom line is, people entering RCIA need to know the Church’s teachings on marriage so that they can fix any situation they may be in that could prevent them from becoming Catholic, as soon as possible. Waiting for the section on the Sacraments at the end of the Catechesis period doesn’t allow sufficient time to get these matters cleared up, in most cases.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You did - or at least it seemed as though you were saying that in certain cases, the person would just go to their priest and he would make the decision, right there on the spot.

absolutely not, go back and read the thread it is simply untrue

All of these methods are Marriage Tribunal methods. Courtroom, Holy See, or whatever, it’s all having to do with the laws of marriage in the Church, and all going to persons who have specific authority regarding marital status.

this is simply wrong anyone who respects the Church does not redefine the Bishop and Holy See as Marriage Tribunals

PS: We have wandered quite far from the subject.

The bottom line is, people entering RCIA need to know the Church’s teachings on marriage so that they can fix any situation they may be in that could prevent them from becoming Catholic, as soon as possible. Waiting for the section on the Sacraments at the end of the Catechesis period doesn’t allow sufficient time to get these matters cleared up, in most cases.

The point of the discussion is these previous divorce issues are so complex it places an extreme stress on the RCIA process. These issues are so complex it is clear the RCIA Team cannot handle these determinations. In the writing from the Canonical Lawyer which dealt with second marriage ceremonies the Lawyer advised always starting with the Priest.

It seems some people just make it up as they go. :bigyikes:

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

aThese issues are so complex it is clear the RCIA Team cannot handle these determinations. In the writing from the Canonical Lawyer which dealt with second marriage ceremonies the Lawyer advised always starting with the Priest.

So why isn’t this brought up in RCIA at the first class/meeting etc.?
so many people get 1/2 through the process to find out that heck I cant join the church at Easter or whenever because I first have to get my previous marriage dealt with.
This would be so much easier if at the first meeting people where told, if you persue RCIA and wanna join the Church it is advised that you meet with the Priest if you have been previously married as this may cause a delay in you being accepted into the church.

 

[jmcrae]

So why isn’t this brought up in RCIA at the first class/meeting etc.?

This conversation got started because someone was complaining how inappropriate it was that someone brought up these issues at the first meeting.

so many people get 1/2 through the process to find out that heck I cant join the church at Easter or whenever because I first have to get my previous marriage dealt with.
This would be so much easier if at the first meeting people where told, if you persue RCIA and wanna join the Church it is advised that you meet with the Priest if you have been previously married as this may cause a delay in you being accepted into the church.

What we are supposed to do in our Diocese is have everyone who is in the Period of Inquiry do an interview that asks all these questions about their marital status, etc. The interview has to be completed and if there are any issues to be resolved, they have to get going on the resolution of these issues, before they can be allowed to move into the Period of Catechesis.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

This conversation got started because someone was complaining how inappropriate it was that someone brought up these issues at the first meeting.

That is when it should be brought up, IMHO!

What we are supposed to do in our Diocese is have everyone who is in the Period of Inquiry do an interview that asks all these questions about their marital status, etc. The interview has to be completed and if there are any issues to be resolved, they have to get going on the resolution of these issues, before they can be allowed to move into the Period of Catechesis.

 

[jmcrae]

The point of the discussion is these previous divorce issues are so complex it places an extreme stress on the RCIA process. These issues are so complex it is clear the RCIA Team cannot handle these determinations. In the writing from the Canonical Lawyer which dealt with second marriage ceremonies the Lawyer advised always starting with the Priest.

Yes, but they aren’t going to go to the priest if they don’t know that they have a problem.

That’s why it has to be brought up in RCIA - so that they can learn what the teaching of the Church is, and become aware of the fact that they can’t become Catholic if they have any of these issues - and this has to be done as early as possible. From there, the RCIA leaders will send them to the priest, who will then get them going on the process with the Marriage Tribunal and any other interventions that they need.

It needs to be made completely clear to them right from the start that they cannot become Catholic without these issues being resolved (whatever they may be, whether simple or complex), because otherwise, they will delay to make an appointment with the priest for various reasons, and then by the time they figure out on their own that they’re in deep trouble, they end up missing their Easter Vigil, etc., and there are tears all around.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So why isn’t this brought up in RCIA at the first class/meeting etc.?

The first problem is attendance is often hit and miss during the first few meetings. What we do is require an application which clearly asks if you were in a previous marriage, and if you were married in a Catholic Church. ( same for baptism)

so many people get 1/2 through the process to find out that heck I cant join the church at Easter or whenever because I first have to get my previous marriage dealt with. This would be so much easier if at the first meeting people where told, if you persue RCIA and wanna join the Church it is advised that you meet with the Priest if you have been previously married as this may cause a delay in you being accepted into the church.

The problem we have is if they mark a previous marriage we send them to the marriage ministry however we do not get clear feedback on what happens after that. For example if the person never goes to the marriage ministry or never completes the process we are not informed. So we do not know, and if they say " I was told I have no impediments" Then we assume that is correct. Same for convalidations, etc.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Yes, but they aren’t going to go to the priest if they don’t know that they have a problem.

That’s why it has to be brought up in RCIA - so that they can learn what the teaching of the Church is, and become aware of the fact that they can’t become Catholic if they have any of these issues - and this has to be done as early as possible. From there, the RCIA leaders will send them to the priest, who will then get them going on the process with the Marriage Tribunal and any other interventions that they need.

It needs to be made completely clear to them right from the start that they cannot become Catholic without these issues being resolved (whatever they may be, whether simple or complex), because otherwise, they will delay to make an appointment with the priest for various reasons, and then by the time they figure out on their own that they’re in deep trouble, they end up missing their Easter Vigil, etc., and there are tears all around.

That is not my experience at all. Please see the post above. A Marriage Ministry is not a Priest, or a Bishop, or a person in the Bishop’s office, or a Tribunal. These are all different people and they all perform different roles. That is one of the reasons communication is so poor, because based on the proper canonical opinion the person can end up in at least 4 different venues of resolution. None of which communicates to the RCIA Team. They do not communicate because it is the Priest (delegated from the Bishop’s authority) responsibility to evaluate a person before the Priest (with delegated authority from the Bishop) delivers a sacrament. The overwhelmed Priest then relies on office staff and RCIA Teams to advise him, yet they have little ability to advise with.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

The problem we have is if they mark a previous marriage we send them to the marriage ministry however we do not get clear feedback on what happens after that. For example if the person never goes to the marriage ministry or never completes the process we are not informed. So we do not know, and if they say " I was told I have no impediments" Then we assume that is correct. Same for convalidations, etc.

So “no one” follows up to make sure all is ok and they can be accepted into the Church? Or you just take someones word for it
Sounds like you guys, sorry, need better communication between the various sectors of the RCIA process.

 

[jmcrae]

That is not my experience at all. Please see the post above. A Marriage Ministry is not a Priest, or a Bishop, or a person in the Bishop’s office, or a Tribunal. These are all different people and they all perform different roles.

I have never heard of a “marriage ministry.” When I was running our Inquiry process, everyone who indicated an issue with their marriage was sent directly to the priest for an evaluation.

But I have noticed that not everyone considers it very important to do that, and we have often had situations where people suddenly discover at the last minute that they can’t become Catholic, either because they were never sent to the priest, or because it was never made completely clear to them that they can’t become Catholic without getting these issues cleared up, so they just never bothered to make an appointment to see the priest when they were told to do so.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Just a thought for you guys: If you read Vatican II’s guidelines on how RCIA should be run, we should not see in any RCIA group a presentation of the Church’s doctrine - however well it may be done. Thus, to go step-by-step through the Catechism is not what the Council had in mind.

 

[lak611]

Just a thought for you guys: If you read Vatican II’s guidelines on how RCIA should be run, we should not see in any RCIA group a presentation of the Church’s doctrine - however well it may be done. Thus, to go step-by-step through the Catechism is not what the Council had in mind.

How did they expect people to decide to be Catholic if the people do not even know what being Catholic means? How does one make a profession of faith if he has no clue what he is professing?

 

[richardeekw]

To be a disciple, is a lifetime of Journew withs the LORD for He is “the Way, the Truth and the Life”.

The RCIA is only an “Initiation” process.
Then study of Doctrines and Daily Bible study/meditation MUST follow.
The bond of fellowship must grow and further evangelization “outward”

So don’t get excited with the RCIA in attempting to “reform” it. More important is “What the Participant have to say”… in view of their different faith levels.

 

[jmcrae]

Just a thought for you guys: If you read Vatican II’s guidelines on how RCIA should be run, we should not see in any RCIA group a presentation of the Church’s doctrine - however well it may be done. Thus, to go step-by-step through the Catechism is not what the Council had in mind.

The Period of Catechesis should be a presentation of the Doctrine of the Church, or else why call it “Catechesis”?

(How can they have memorized the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer to recite them aloud for the Presentations of each of these during the Lenten period, if they never actually study these things?)

 

[Michael_Saint]

How did they expect people to decide to be Catholic if the people do not even know what being Catholic means? How does one make a profession of faith if he has no clue what he is professing?

The Council had in mind a re-instatement of the catechetical methods of the Fathers, which was the teaching of the Faith through salvation history - or in other words, the story of the Bible.

Thus, in going through Scripture, the institution of marriage should be covered through the story of Adam and Eve, the call to faith through the story of Abraham, etc. etc. Typological stuff.