V
Vico
Guest
It was handled that way from 2006.
- Status
P
Phemie
Guest
And before that there was no agreement on what “formal defection” meant.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. There was no provision for “being formally defected” (that is, in the passive voice), as if one may have defected through the action of another. Rather, there was only the provision for a person to explicitly “formally defect” from the Church. And, as Phemie mentioned, there was no agreement on what might have constituted such a “formal defection,” so it would have been impossible to state with any certainty what such an act would have been.
In any case, it would have had to have been a ‘formal’ defection, and not just simply ceasing to practice the faith and starting to attend at another denomination.
V
Vico
Guest
I read this in the first post: “I followed my Dad’s Protestant faith, & I was baptized at 16 in the Baptist church. I had not considered myself Catholic, but grew up with it…”
G
Gorgias
Guest
None of which implies either an imposed (i.e., passive) formal defection or a personal, active formal defection.
V
Vico
Guest
Not sure why you say that. “I had not considered myself Catholic” and the formal second non-infant Baptist baptism, which is the entry to that ecclesial community.None of which implies either an imposed (i.e., passive) formal defection or a personal, active formal defection.
G
Gorgias
Guest
That doesn’t rise to the standard of “formal defection”.
V
Vico
Guest
Why do you post shrug continually? Please give some sort of authority for this, dating from before 1983 - 2006.That doesn’t rise to the standard of “formal defection”.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Because I’m shrugging at you: “Vico, what do you want me to say? You’re making unsupported assertions that just don’t hold up!”
Just to make sure I understand: you’re making the claim that the mere cessation of attendance at Mass and lack of reception of sacraments meets the standard for “formal defection from the Church”? And… you’re not demonstrating that it does? And… you’re asking me to disprove the assertion that you yourself haven’t substantiated? Seriously?
V
Vico
Guest
Of course not. Read the posts, that is not what I said. If you read the Jimmy Akin blogs on this he presents that before 2006 defection was interpreted broadly and changed to narrowly.Because I’m shrugging at you: “Vico, what do you want me to say? You’re making unsupported assertions that just don’t hold up!”
Just to make sure I understand: you’re making the claim that the mere cessation of attendance at Mass and lack of reception of sacraments meets the standard for “formal defection from the Church”? And… you’re not demonstrating that it does? And… you’re asking me to disprove the assertion that you yourself haven’t substantiated? Seriously?
From the promulgation of the 1983 Code to the 2006 clarification, the formal defection exception was in effect and was to be interpreted broadly, in keeping with the language of the law. (The 2006 clarification went beyond the language of the law and thus should not be retroactive in force; CIC, can. 16).
jimmyakin.com/2009/12/once-a-catholic.html
K
kainosktisis
Guest
Thank you, Gorgias!
ray:t3:Thank you all for your kind replies, & to all, a good night!
D
dans0622
Guest
I’m not sure why he says “the formal defection exception … was to be interpreted broadly” when the law says exceptions from the law are to be interpreted strictly (c. 18). At any rate, the fact of the matter is that the notion of “formal defection” was interpreted variously and so the intervention of the PCLT was needed, which they got around to doing in 2006.
It’s also not clear that the “clarification went beyond the language of the law.” It defined a phrase in a way that made it obvious that it is different from “public defection” (cf.e.g., c. 194.1.2) and “notorious rejection” (cf. e.g., c. 1071.1.4) It can be said that the 2006 statement merely defines terms that are certain in themselves and so there are canonists of repute who say that the 2006 statement can be applied retroactively.
Dan
V
Vico
Guest
For the period before the 2006 clarification – Prot. N. 10279/2006, see the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, (CLSA commentary) said:
The following may be considered to have defected from the Catholic Church by a formal act: those who have made a public declaration of their abandonment of the Catholic faith, either in writing or orally before two witnesses, and those who have formally enrolled by some external sign in another Christian church or another religion [commentary on c. 1117].
Catholics who defected from the Catholic Church broadly speaking (1983-2006) were not bound to the canonical form of celebration for the validity of their marriage nor subject to the impediment of marrying non-baptized or non-Catholic Christians.
I can see that with the clarification of 2006 it became more narrowly defined requiring written notification be given to the Church. Applying it retroactively would mean those marriages to which c. 1117 was broadly applied during 1983 - 2006, would then have to be con-validated as of 2006 clarification. Those that returned to the Catholic faith before the 2006 clarification would already have the notation of their marriage made in their records. You are saying that it would invalidate, which seems to be non-binding since there is a doubt about retro-activity, not being specifically stated.
P
Phemie
Guest
P
Phemie
Guest
I must say that in the years I worked at the parish I only encountered that “formal defection” once. We were notified by a parish in Germany that a Catholic had publicly declared he was not Catholic - I presume to avoid paying the Church Tax.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I would recommend that you refer to the paragraph prior to the one which you quoted here:
The OP states that these things that you consider a “formal act” occurred while she was a minor.
More to the point, the commentary asserts that “the concept of ‘defection from the Catholic Church by a formal act’ is an innovation of the 1983 code, and its exact meaning has yet to be determined.”
So, no matter how you slice it, your assertions fail to hold up.
There’s been no discussion of attempts at ‘retroactive application’, so I’m not sure what you’re asserting here. The putative timeline appears to be: lapse from Catholic Church / joining Baptist denomination while a minor (without assertion of whether this was pre-'83 or post-'83), no indication of formal defection while an adult (in this case, in the 1983-1988 timeframe), marriage w/o form (around 1988), return to Church (around 2013).
It would seem that it’s this timeline that led the OP’s pastor to discern that it was a ‘lack of form’ case, rather than a ‘defection by a formal act’ case.
V
Vico
Guest
Age 14 is sufficient for selection. I brought up retroactive, which is valid. The 1983 code as a matter of fact was broad until the 2006 clarification. There was in fact a different pastoral practice from 1983-2006.I would recommend that you refer to the paragraph prior to the one which you quoted here:
The OP states that these things that you consider a “formal act” occurred while she was a minor.
More to the point, the commentary asserts that “the concept of ‘defection from the Catholic Church by a formal act’ is an innovation of the 1983 code, and its exact meaning has yet to be determined.”
So, no matter how you slice it, your assertions fail to hold up.
There’s been no discussion of attempts at ‘retroactive application’, so I’m not sure what you’re asserting here. The putative timeline appears to be: lapse from Catholic Church / joining Baptist denomination while a minor (without assertion of whether this was pre-'83 or post-'83), no indication of formal defection while an adult (in this case, in the 1983-1988 timeframe), marriage w/o form (around 1988), return to Church (around 2013).
It would seem that it’s this timeline that led the OP’s pastor to discern that it was a ‘lack of form’ case, rather than a ‘defection by a formal act’ case.
G
Gorgias
Guest
If that’s how you interpret “minor”.
No; the code was vague. The interpretative stance of many was broad.
The problem is that there were a variety of pastoral practices in that timeframe, and more to the point, there was no normative practice.
Also, I’m not certain what you’re trying to say with ‘retroactive’. Are you merely pointing out that the code was dealing in requirements of form from '83 onward, whereas the ‘formal defections’ could have happened prior to that point in time?
V
Vico
Guest
Retroactive refers to those that wanted to apply the 2006 clarification retroactively back to 1983-2006 to those that had married after defection in that period, but then rejoined the Catholic faith before 2006, to invalidate their marriages.If that’s how you interpret “minor”.
No; the code was vague. The interpretative stance of many was broad.
The problem is that there were a variety of pastoral practices in that timeframe, and more to the point, there was no normative practice.
Also, I’m not certain what you’re trying to say with ‘retroactive’. Are you merely pointing out that the code was dealing in requirements of form from '83 onward, whereas the ‘formal defections’ could have happened prior to that point in time?
Majority at age 18 (Can. 97). For baptism, age 14 can choose their church (Can. 111.2). Just to emphasize age of consent in answer to your shrug.
O
otjm
Guest
Jimmy Akin, while being quite knowledgeable in matters of the Faith, is a lay apologist. That does not make him an expert in every matter that he expounds on or expresses an opinion about.
I have listened to him many times, learned a few things, and on more than one occasion, known that he is expressing his personal opinion and is not acting as part of the Magisterium.
- Status