Invalid weddings for those baptized but not raised Catholic?

[Claire_from_DE]

I ask this question because all my nephews and my niece were baptized Catholic but never raised Catholic (and their parents never intended to raise them Catholic) and it wouldn’t even occur to them to consider themselves Catholic. Does this mean that, from the Catholic point of view, their marriages outside the church are invalid (non sacramental)?

When my niece was baptized, I asked my brother why he wanted her baptized. He said to wipe away original sin and give her a good start in life. He wasn’t going to raise her as anything other than Catholic but he wasn’t going to go to church every week or send her to Sunday school either.

 

[Carjack1]

I ask this question because all my nephews and my niece were baptized Catholic but never raised Catholic (and their parents never intended to raise them Catholic) and it wouldn’t even occur to them to consider themselves Catholic. Does this mean that, from the Catholic point of view, their marriages outside the church are invalid (non sacramental)?

When my niece was baptized, I asked my brother why he wanted her baptized. He said to wipe away original sin and give her a good start in life. He wasn’t going to raise her as anything other than Catholic but he wasn’t going to go to church every week or send her to Sunday school either.

I am like your neice and nephew. I married outside the Church, even though I wasn’t raised Catholic(but was baptized). I am still considered one and am under their rules. I spoke to a priest about this to clarify.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Does this mean that, from the Catholic point of view, their marriages outside the church are invalid (non sacramental)?

Yes, if they married outside the Church without a dispensation, their marriages are both invalid and non-sacramental (they mean different things).

This is why having children baptized is a serious responsibility on the part of parents, since their children will be bound by the laws of the Church, and it is the sacred duty of parents to instruct their children in the teachings of the Church.

Valid/invalid refers to whether the marriage actually exists. Catholics who marry outside the Church without proper dispensation are not really married in the eyes of God and the Church; their “marriage” is invalid.

If two non-Catholics marry outside the Church, the Church recognizes their civil marriage as valid (they are really married in the eyes of God), assuming the marriage was between one man and one woman with proper intent; the Church cannot expect non-Catholics to get married in the Catholic Church. However, their marriage is not sacramental.

 

[rwoehmke]

I am like your neice and nephew. I married outside the Church, even though I wasn’t raised Catholic(but was baptized). I am still considered one and am under their rules. I spoke to a priest about this to clarify.

That is exactly what I understand. Must get kind of hairy for kids who grow up and never realize they were baptized in the Catholic Church and become liable for hell fire if they marry off the reservation. Sounds like there are no loop holes.

 

[Carjack1]

That is exactly what I understand. Must get kind of hairy for kids who grow up and never realize they were baptized in the Catholic Church and become liable for hell fire if they marry off the reservation. Sounds like there are no loop holes.

I was baptized and raised in a semi-feminist enviroment. Only being told that I am Catholic(I didn’t know what that entailed). I am bound for hell, at least until my RCIA in September or at least until I can get the marriage convalidated.

Claire from DE,

Your nephews and neice could get their marriage convalidated

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I ask this question because all my nephews and my niece were baptized Catholic but never raised Catholic (and their parents never intended to raise them Catholic) and it wouldn’t even occur to them to consider themselves Catholic. Does this mean that, from the Catholic point of view, their marriages outside the church are invalid (non sacramental)?

When my niece was baptized, I asked my brother why he wanted her baptized. He said to wipe away original sin and give her a good start in life. He wasn’t going to raise her as anything other than Catholic but he wasn’t going to go to church every week or send her to Sunday school either.

Un-fortunately many parents do this to their children. If they were Baptized Catholic then they are subject to the canon law of the catholic Church. If they Marry outside that form their Marriages would most likely be invalid and therefore non-Sacramental. However only a tribunal investigation could determine the exact status of their Marriage.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

That is exactly what I understand. Must get kind of hairy for kids who grow up and never realize they were baptized in the Catholic Church and become liable for hell fire if they marry off the reservation. Sounds like there are no loop holes.

God will not hold anyone accountable for something they don’t know. Now He may hold the parents accountable however.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yes, if they married outside the Church without a dispensation, their marriages are both invalid and non-sacramental (they mean different things).

This is why having children baptized is a serious responsibility on the part of parents, since their children will be bound by the laws of the Church, and it is the sacred duty of parents to instruct their children in the teachings of the Church.

Valid/invalid refers to whether the marriage actually exists. Catholics who marry outside the Church without proper dispensation are not really married in the eyes of God and the Church; their “marriage” is invalid.

If two non-Catholics marry outside the Church, the Church recognizes their civil marriage as valid (they are really married in the eyes of God), assuming the marriage was between one man and one woman with proper intent; the Church cannot expect non-Catholics to get married in the Catholic Church. However, their marriage is not sacramental.

The Catholics Marriage would be non-Sacramental if invalid. Sacramentality requires that the Marriage be valid also.

Two non-Catholic Baptized Christians (one male, one female) free to MArry and capable of Marriage if Married validly in their Christian Comunity are also Scaramentally Married.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

If two non-Catholics marry outside the Church, the Church recognizes their civil marriage as valid (they are really married in the eyes of God), assuming the marriage was between one man and one woman with proper intent; the Church cannot expect non-Catholics to get married in the Catholic Church. However, their marriage is not sacramental.

If both parties were properly baptized, i.e. the proper formula, the marriage is sacramental. The sacrament is conferred by the parties to the marriage, not by the clergy [except for those subject to Eastern Churches - Catholic and Orthodox].

Note that if one or both parties have not been baptized the marriage is a natural marriage and can be dissolved by the Pauline or Petrine Privilege. However if both parties have been baptized the marriage is sacramental and cannot be dissolved.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

If both parties were properly baptized, i.e. the proper formula, the marriage is sacramental. The sacrament is conferred by the parties to the marriage, not by the clergy [except for those subject to Eastern Churches - Catholic and Orthodox].

Note that if one or both parties have not been baptized the marriage is a natural marriage and can be dissolved by the Pauline or Petrine Privilege. However if both parties have been baptized the marriage is sacramental and cannot be dissolved

I believe that the Pauline Privilege requires that both parties not be Baptized for the Privilege to be used and that one of them is seeking to be Baptized in the Catholic Church.

Can. 1143~1 In virtue of the pauline privilege, a marriage entered into by two unbaptised persons is dissolved in favour of the faith of the party who received baptism, by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by that same party, provided the unbaptised party departs.

The Petrine Privilege requires that the Marriage be unconsummated.

Can. 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at
the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

The Petrine Privilege requires that the Marriage be unconsummated.

Can. 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at
the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

No, it is not dependent on consummation, it only requires that at least one party was not baptized and that its dissolution will enable someone to practice the Catholic Faith.I know of two consummated marriages which have been so dissolved to for my catechumens.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

No, it is not dependent on consummation, it only requires that at least one party was not baptized and that its dissolution will enable someone to practice the Catholic Faith.I know of two consummated marriages which have been so dissolved to for my catechumens.

The Petrine Privilege requires that the Marriage be unconsummated.

Can. 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at
the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling

I read this as having two requirements:

1. A non-consummated marriage.
2. Between [two] baptised persons or between a baptised person and an unbaptised person.

A Natural Marriage between two un-baptized perople is dissolved by the Pauline.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

See Petrine Privilege

The pope has the power to dissolve a valid consummated natural marriage through Petrine priviledge. This can be done when the one party is baptized and one is not baptized. If both are baptized and the marriage is consummated, then this cannot be done.

**Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL **

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

See Petrine Privilege **Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL **

That seems to be how he is interpreting it, but that is not how other seem to interpret it. I’d like to see how Deacon Lansing weighs in on this?

 

[cameron_lansing]

The Petrine Privilege requires that the Marriage be unconsummated.

Can. 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at
the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling

I read this as having two requirements:

1. A non-consummated marriage.
2. Between [two] baptised persons or between a baptised person and an unbaptised person.

A Natural Marriage between two un-baptized perople is dissolved by the Pauline.

This is not correct.

Canon 1142 treats non consummation and not the so called “Petrine Privilege” (aka favor of the faith). The two are different and should not be confused…

The norms and conditions for the favor of the faith are found outside the code (see CDF Norms. April 30. 2001).

laarchdiocese.org/prayer/sacraments/tribunal/ministers/favor.html might be consulted though.

 

[otjm]

This is not correct.

Canon 1142 treats non consummation and not the so called “Petrine Privilege” (aka favor of the faith). The two are different and should not be confused…

The norms and conditions for the favor of the faith are found outside the code (see CDF Norms. April 30. 2001).

laarchdiocese.org/prayer/sacraments/tribunal/ministers/favor.html might be consulted though.

This, however does not answer the original question. Is someone who is baptized Catholic but not catechized and not raised Catholic (and who may not identify themselves as Catholic) bound by the rule that the marriage must be witnessed by a priest or deacon? It is my understanding that one who officially leaves the Church is no longer bound; but is a total lack of connection other than infant baptism sufficient to bind to the regulation?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

This is not correct.

Canon 1142 treats non consummation and not the so called “Petrine Privilege” (aka favor of the faith). The two are different and should not be confused…

The norms and conditions for the favor of the faith are found outside the code (see CDF Norms. April 30. 2001).

laarchdiocese.org/prayer/sacraments/tribunal/ministers/favor.html might be consulted though.

If I’m understanding this correctly.

If both are Baptized (either at the time of the Marriage or during the Marriage), the Marriage must be non-Consummated.

If one of the people is not and has never been Baptized it does not matter if the Marriage is consummated or not.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

That seems to be how he is interpreting it, but that is not how other seem to interpret it. I’d like to see how Deacon Lansing weighs in on this?

I shall correct my notes on the matter.

 

[cameron_lansing]

It is my understanding that one who officially leaves the Church is no longer bound; but is a total lack of connection other than infant baptism sufficient to bind to the regulation?

That is correct.

 

[otjm]

That is correct.

Then, without being flippant, they have the “short route out” if it doesn’t work… I guess we just file that under the “Justice and Mercy Conundrum” file.

Thanks!