Formal Defection Loophole Closed, What Will Happen?

[Just_Lurking]

I don’t understand this though-your baptized without your consent, espectially if your a child. You have no free will over it.

If you don’t want to practice the faith, shouldn’t there be a way to say no?

The 1917 code of canon law had an exception (or loophole) for people who had been baptized Catholic as infants but were not raised in the faith. The exception was revoked in 1949 (or 1950?) because it turned out to be too difficult to define what exactly it meant to not be raised in the faith.

 

[Rascalking]

The 1917 code of canon law had an exception (or loophole) for people who had been baptized Catholic as infants but were not raised in the faith. The exception was revoked in 1949 (or 1950?) because it turned out to be too difficult to define what exactly it meant to not be raised in the faith.

Hmm. OK. But if your want nothing to do with the church, shouldn’t you, as an adult and using your free will, be able to say so?

I admit I find this confusing…I think if people, making a clear choice, want to leave the church, let them. It breaks my heart if people want to leave-but that’s their personal choice.

 

[TedDC]

Hmm. OK. But if your want nothing to do with the church, shouldn’t you, as an adult and using your free will, be able to say so?

I admit I find this confusing…I think if people, making a clear choice, want to leave the church, let them. It breaks my heart if people want to leave-but that’s their personal choice.

Yes, it seems meaningless to insist that someone is still a member of an organization from which they’ve affirmatively separated themselves. What good does it accomplish?

In my case, I left because I lost my belief in fundamental tenets of the faith, and because I found some Church laws unconscionable even after I understood the reasoning behind them.

 

[Vico]

I don’t think the loophole is closed quite yet. There is a delay from when the change is announced to when it goes into effect. Does anyone know the actual effective date?

It goes into effect three months after it appears in Acta Apostolica Sedis, and that publication seems to always be months late, so I am guessing it will be effective sometime near the end of 2010.

The practical effect is that it will be more common to have a “lack of form” condition for an attempted marriage, and that can be resolved simply without a tribunal as a documentary case.

 

[Janet1983]

It goes into effect three months after it appears in Acta Apostolica Sedis, and that publication seems to always be months late, so I am guessing it will be effective sometime near the end of 2010.

The practical effect is that it will be more common to have a “lack of form” condition for an attempted marriage, and that can be resolved simply without a tribunal as a documentary case.

Well now that a few months have passed. Is it in effect by now? (Just curious.)

 

[Vico]

Well now that a few months have passed. Is it in effect by now? (Just curious.)

The end of Omnium in Mentum states:

"All that I have laid down in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I now order to have the force of law, anything whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I direct that it be published in the official gazette Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 26 October in the year 2009, the fifth of my Pontificate."
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

And it was just published officially!

CIC Can. 8 §1 Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the ‘Acta Apostolicae Sedis’, unless in particular cases another manner of promulgation has been prescribed. They come into force only on the expiry of three months from the date appearing on the particular issue of the ‘Acta’, unless because of the nature of the case they bind at once, or unless a shorter or a longer interval has been specifically and expressly prescribed in the law itself. §2 Particular laws are promulgated in the manner determined by the legislator; they begin to oblige one month from the date of promulgation, unless a different period is prescribed in the law itself.

Contents:

Acta Apostolicae Sedis, anno 2010, vol. 102, numero 1
(settembre 2010) – Published: 20 settembre 2010

Acta Benedicti PP. XVI

• Costitutio Apostolica I. In Aethiopia Praef. Ap. Gimmaensis Bongana ad gradum Vicariatus Ap. evehitur, pp. 1-2
• Costitutio Apostolica II. In Aethopia Vicariatus Ap. Gambellensis conditur, pp. 2-3
• Costitutio Apostolica III. In Croatia diocesis Sisciensis conditur, pp. 4-5
• Costitutio Apostolica IV. In Croatia diocesis Bellovariensis-Crisiensis conditur, pp. 5-6
• Costitutio Apostolica V. In Foed. Civitate Russia Nuntiatura Ap. conditur, p. 7
• Litterae Apostolicae Motu Proprio Datae – Quaedam in Codice Iuris Canonici immutantur, pp. 8-10
• Litterae Apostolicae I. Venn. Dei Servi Theodosius Raphaël López Hernández et III Socii, fiunt Beati, pp. 11-14
• Litterae Apostolicae II. Ven. Dei Seva Vicentia Maria Poloni fit. Beata, pp. 15-16
• Homiliae I. In nocte Sollemnitatis Nativitatis Domini, pp. 17-20
• Homiliae II. In Vesperarum et Hymni Te Deum celebratione, pp. 21-23
• Homiliae III. In Sollemnitate Sanctae Dei Genetricis Mariae, pp. 24-28
• Allocutiones I. Ad Congr. de Causis Sanctorum recurrente XL anniversaria memoria institutionis huius Dicasterii, pp. 29-31
• Allocutiones II. Natalicia omina Curiae Romanae significantur, pp. 32-40
• Nuntii I. In celebratione XLIII Diei Intenrnationalis ad Pacem Fovendam, pp. 41-50
• Nuntii II. Ad Archiepiscopum Compostellanum, pp. 51-53
• Nuntii III. Urbi et Orbi in Sollemnitate Nativitatis Domini, pp. 54-56
• Segretaria Status I. Dom. Emmanuel Milingo e statu clericali dimittitur, pp. 57-58
• Segretaria Status II. Declaratio ad Summi Pontificis dignitatem tuendam, p. 59
• Conventio. Monetalis Pactio inter Satatu Civ. Vaticanae et Communitatem Europeam, pp. 60-65

Acta Congregationum

• Congregatio pro Episcopis – Provisio Ecclesiarum, pp. 66-68

Diarium Romanae Curiae

• Audientiae Sollemniores, p. 756
• Segretaria di Stato: Nomine, pp. 70-71
• Necrologio, p. 72

 

[Janet1983]

Thank you for your detailed reply. I was curious about what had come out of this.

 

[Lutheranteach]

This change will actually make it easier for “fallen away” Catholics to return to the church and get a “free do-over” in effect abandoning their old marriage as though it never existed. This new change takes effect after it’s formally published in some vatican register (dont’ remember which), but it’s supposed to happen early this year. From that point on, Catholics are bound to follow church marriage forms, no matter what. Well, of course ex-Catholics aren’t going to lose any sleep over that, so they’ll get married in a civil ceremony or some other church. Whatever percent decide to come back to the RCC someday, of course can seek to have their marriage validated or get dispensation or whatever. On the other hand, if they divorced and now want to marry a good Catholic spouse, no problem. They get a free divorce because their first marriage was “invalid.”

To my mind, it’s absurd that the church would presume to exercise any authority of canon law over people who have renounced their membership entirely. It’s also kind of creepy and cult-like. It singles out ex-Catholics as a sort of pariah class. The marriage of protestants are valid even though they and their ancestors rejected the church generations ago. Osama Bin Laden’s marriages are valid in the church’s eyes. But not the marriages of people who decided Catholicism wasn’t for them.

You’re right in the fact that not many people in this country have submitted a formal declaration of defection, because so few people knew of the procedure or wanted to bother sending in a notarized letter (I did, but I’m kind of a geek). In Ireland, thousands have done so in the wake of the Ryan report. I’m curious to see whether the church will even continue to accept such letters. With this new change, defection will have absolutely no consequence in canon law.

I agree with all of the above. I wonder how many would defect if it were as easy as opting out online and it meant one was truly no longer Catholic, taken off the records, not contacted, released from any and all obligation to canon law. I joke and call the Church “Hotel California” *You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave, * but there is some truth to it. It’s somewhat creepy in a way that a child could be raised Catholic, have no real say in his baptism, first communion, first confession, etc. but never be able to leave in the eyes of the Church no matter how much he may want nothing to do with it.

 

[Vico]

“To my mind, it’s absurd that the church would presume to exercise any authority of canon law over people who have renounced their membership entirely.”

The Catholic Church holds anyone marrying a Catholic to the canons, even the non-baptised, and has authority in the administration of marriage within the Catholic Church only.

Always being recognized as Catholic is consistent with the definition of the sacrament of baptism. Baptism is not something on paper, but has a permanent effect on the soul. So that is why one cannot leave the Church after baptism; one cannot change the past. The reasons given for the change to the canon law:

The canon law was changed because:

1. the formal act of separation from the Church is difficult to establish theologically and canonically
2. it appeared to facilitate and encourage apostasy
3. it caused difficulty for the return of baptized persons desiring a new canonical marriage following the failure of a preceding marriage.
4. and many of these marriages became “clandestine”

 

[angelerulastiel]

Just to clarify, is it in effect? I didn’t really understand Vico’s post.

 

[Vico]

Just to clarify, is it in effect? I didn’t really understand Vico’s post.

It is promulgated, Sep 20, 2010, and will be in effect after three months, Dec 21, 2010.

 

[Lutheranteach]

“To my mind, it’s absurd that the church would presume to exercise any authority of canon law over people who have renounced their membership entirely.”

The Catholic Church holds anyone marrying a Catholic to the canons, even the non-baptised, and has authority in the administration of marriage within the Catholic Church only.

Always being recognized as Catholic is consistent with the definition of the sacrament of baptism. Baptism is not something on paper, but has a permanent effect on the soul. So that is why one cannot leave the Church after baptism; one cannot change the past. The reasons given for the change to the canon law:

The canon law was changed because:

1. the formal act of separation from the Church is difficult to establish theologically and canonically
2. it appeared to facilitate and encourage apostasy
3. it caused difficulty for the return of baptized persons desiring a new canonical marriage following the failure of a preceding marriage.
4. and many of these marriages became “clandestine”

I don’t believe the mainstream protestant view is that one is baptized Lutheran, Metholdist, Presbyterian, etc. but rather as Christian. Nowhere in a Lutheran baptism (at least none I’ve attended) have every used the word Lutheran. I think #1 is no harder to establish via canon than someone saying they want to be married, they want to receive communion, they appear at confession, etc.

 

[Vico]

I don’t believe the mainstream protestant view is that one is baptized Lutheran, Metholdist, Presbyterian, etc. but rather as Christian. Nowhere in a Lutheran baptism (at least none I’ve attended) have every used the word Lutheran. I think #1 is no harder to establish via canon than someone saying they want to be married, they want to receive communion, they appear at confession, etc.

One is a Christian once validly baptised. For a non-convert Catholic it happens through a duly appointed minister of a ritual church. The faithful, in Catholic teaching, belong to the Universal Church only by membership in a ritual church, which is established for the young by the Catholic parent or parents or Catholic guardian responsible for their religious and worldly training. (Initiation: baptism, chrismation/confirmation, and Holy Eucharist).

The comment is on the difficulty of formal separation not membership “1. the formal act of separation from the Church is difficult to establish theologically and canonically.” You should believe this, especially coming from those that know canon law and Catholic theology.

 

[Janet1983]

One is a Christian once validly baptised. For a non-convert Catholic it happens through a duly appointed minister of a ritual church. The faithful, in Catholic teaching, belong to the Universal Church only by membership in a ritual church, which is established for the young by the Catholic parent or parents or Catholic guardian responsible for their religious and worldly training. (Initiation: baptism, chrismation/confirmation, and Holy Eucharist).

The comment is on the difficulty of formal separation not membership “1. the formal act of separation from the Church is difficult to establish theologically and canonically.” You should believe this, especially coming from those that know canon law and Catholic theology.

Well the Catholic Church did accept my formal defection when I took the step…
I know that according to Catholic theology I will always be Catholic, but that doesn’t change the fact that my formal defection was accepted…

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, it seems meaningless to insist that someone is still a member of an organization from which they’ve affirmatively separated themselves. What good does it accomplish?

In my case, I left because I lost my belief in fundamental tenets of the faith, and because I found some Church laws unconscionable even after I understood the reasoning behind them.

It just says that the mark of baptism does not depend on how you choose to live it out.

I can tell my parents that I’m never going to speak to them again, I might even have good reason to do it, I can even go through the hoops of civil law to get the fact stricken from some document that lists their legal offspring…but I’m still their daughter. If I told them I were leaving for reason and never coming back and a sister of mine just drifted away out of indifference without thinking about it or even willing it, is that such a big difference? It might feel a lot different to tell them, but in what I could expect out of our relationship in the future, I don’t think so. I don’t think either of us sisters would be more “gone” than the other, or that either would be less “back” if we were to come back. A daughter is a daughter; a son is a son. No one chooses what family they belong to. That is our situation as Catholics.

I say this as someone who left for a reason, but has come back. I was still Catholic when I was gone. Had I sent a letter to the bishop to defect formally, it would have changed how I felt while I was gone. It wouldn’t have changed how I look at the situation now that I’m back.

That is the thing: this kind of ruling is for Catholics who come back, not for the ones who don’t. If I never come back, what would I care?

 

[Vico]

Well the Catholic Church did accept my formal defection when I took the step…
I know that according to Catholic theology I will always be Catholic, but that doesn’t change the fact that my formal defection was accepted…

Yes one can make a formal declaration and it can be accepted. What has changed is here in Omnium in Mentem:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

One statement there addresses the difficulty of formal act of separation from the Church:

“Experience, however, has shown that this new law gave rise to numerous pastoral problems. First, in individual cases the definition and practical configuration of such a formal act of separation from the Church has proved difficult to establish, from both a theological and a canonical standpoint. In addition, many difficulties have surfaced both in pastoral activity and the practice of tribunals.”

 

[Lutheranteach]

It just says that the mark of baptism does not depend on how you choose to live it out.

I can tell my parents that I’m never going to speak to them again, I might even have good reason to do it, I can even go through the hoops of civil law to get the fact stricken from some document that lists their legal offspring…but I’m still their daughter. If I told them I were leaving for reason and never coming back and a sister of mine just drifted away out of indifference without thinking about it or even willing it, is that such a big difference? It might feel a lot different to tell them, but in what I could expect out of our relationship in the future, I don’t think so. I don’t think either of us sisters would be more “gone” than the other, or that either would be less “back” if we were to come back. A daughter is a daughter; a son is a son. No one chooses what family they belong to. That is our situation as Catholics.

I say this as someone who left for a reason, but has come back. I was still Catholic when I was gone. Had I sent a letter to the bishop to defect formally, it would have changed how I felt while I was gone. It wouldn’t have changed how I look at the situation now that I’m back.

That is the thing: this kind of ruling is for Catholics who come back, not for the ones who don’t. If I never come back, what would I care?

I wouldn’t say it’s so much like a son or daughter leaving a parent. More like a a wife or husband seeking a divorce from an arranged marriage.

 

[EasterJoy]

I wouldn’t say it’s so much like a son or daughter leaving a parent. More like a a wife or husband seeking a divorce from an arranged marriage.

I disagree, particularly in view of the likelihood that you, a Lutheran, see marriage as a reversible contract. Baptism results in the transmission of life, not the joining of one life to another in a complementary fashion.

Like dissolving a marriage, though, this isn’t primarily a legal transaction. After all, just because we get a birth certificate from the state when we’re born doesn’t mean that birth is primarily a legal transaction we had with our parents. OTOH, I suppose that someone that decides to leave his or her homeland might not want to see the identity issues involved. It is easier to say, “My parents chose that country, not me. It is just a piece of ground like any other on the earth. It means nothing to me.”

If the person leaves the Catholic Church not for the Lutherans or the Baptists or some other denomination of our separated brethren, but leaves Christianity entirely, it is easier to see the issue. For if a Catholic goes into the Lutheran Church, the Catholic is not re-baptized, correct? In other words, the person didn’t see himself or herself as leaving his or her baptism behind. The mark made by the Catholic baptism is recogizable by the Lutherans, and they don’t care if a formal letter was sent to anyone. In a manner of speaking, the Catholic who leaves to join another church is moving in with more distant relatives, not divorcing the “husband” or the “wife.”

If a person renounces his or her baptism, that has meaning. It doesn’t reverse the baptism, though. It is more of a self-excommunication, where a rift is introduced into a fundamentally unbreakable relationship.

 

[Janet1983]

If a person renounces his or her baptism, that has meaning. It doesn’t reverse the baptism, though. It is more of a self-excommunication, where a rift is introduced into a fundamentally unbreakable relationship.

Would you be so kind and direct me to the source you have for this self-excommunication. It seems my memory is somewhat lacking in this, but I am sure that you will know as you brought it up. I haven’t been on top of Catholic issues for a while so please excuse my lack of knowledge in this matter.

 

[EasterJoy]

Would you be so kind and direct me to the source you have for this self-excommunication. It seems my memory is somewhat lacking in this, but I am sure that you will know as you brought it up. I haven’t been on top of Catholic issues for a while so please excuse my lack of knowledge in this matter.

You don’t sound as if you believe me.

I’m speaking of excommunication latæ sententiæ: that is, one that automatically follows a chosen action by force of canon law itself. Since you have to be aware that what you are doing is contrary to canon law and freely choose to do it anyway, if you knowingly choose an act that brings an excommunication latæ sententiæ, you have essentially excommunicated yourself. One of the actions that bring on automatic excommunication is being an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic. Schism is the term for someone who leaves the Church by a formal act of separation. IOW: a formal act by which you inform your bishop that you’re leaving communion with the Church is an act that results in the automatic excommunication of the schismatic. Since no act is required by the bishop to effect the excommunication, I’d call that self-excommunication.

Now, you may say that it is the law the Church that excommunicates, and that the person does not literally excommunicate himself or herself. I would grant you that on the grounds of semantics. I think it would be a case of splitting hairs, but I can appreciate people who like to keep the semantics straight.

If you believe Wikapedia, the following persons incur excommunication latæ sententiæ:
an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic
a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose
a person who uses physical force against the Pope
a priest who uses confession as a pretext to solicit the confessor to break the commandment against adultery
a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him
a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession
a person who procures a completed abortion
accomplices who are not named in a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication but without whose assistance the violation of the law would not have been committed.
any Catholic who is a convinced member of Freemasonry, “notoriously” adhering to the Masonic vision, is already considered excommunicated latae sententiae.
a person who violates the secrecy of a papal election, or who interferes with it by means such as simony
and, most recently declared, a woman who simulates ordination as a priest or a bishop who simulates the ordination of a woman as a priest

In the last case, there are certain women who have attempted ordination who reportedly “reject their excommunication”. I don’t know what that is even supposed to mean. I suppose it is an attempt at “h*** no, we won’t go”, but excommunication doesn’t work like that. I suppose that case demonstrates how one can incur excommunication latæ sententiæ without intending to excommunicate herself. It takes a certain amount of self-deception, but I guess it is possible.