It just makes no sense

[kage_ar]

dawnicamar:

Another thing that makes no sense:

• 2 married non-Christians are not fornicating, married by the State and possibly a non-Christian church.
• Later, one of the non-Christians converts to Catholicism. NOW he is considered to be fornicating.

What the h-ll?

That is not always the case, unless one of them was previously married to someone else. When two non Catholics are married, that marriage is recognized if only one converts (again, as long as it was the first marriage for each).

 

[mercygate]

dawnicamar:

Another thing that makes no sense:

• 2 married non-Christians are not fornicating, married by the State and possibly a non-Christian church.
• Later, one of the non-Christians converts to Catholicism. NOW he is considered to be fornicating.

What the h-ll?

Right (when you say non-Christian Church, do you mean JW or LDS?). We should leave the state out of this because the state view of marriage has next to nothing in common with that of any church or religious community. For the state, it’s just a civil contract.

Now that the person is Catholic, he will hold to the Church’s higher doctrine concerning marriage than the view he held as a non-Christian. In the eyes of the Church, there has been no marriage at all because the intent of the original “marriage” did not conform with the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament. That’s pretty easy to grasp, isn’t it?

I wonder if Protestant denominations would require some sort of church marriage in the parallel situation where the non-Christian became, say a Lutheran?

 

[dawnicamar]

kage_ar:

That is not always the case, unless one of them was previously married to someone else. When two non Catholics are married, that marriage is recognized if only one converts (again, as long as it was the first marriage for each).

It’s my understanding that the marriage would need to be convalidated or radically sanated in order for the converted Catholic to receive the eucharist. In other words, the marriage is not valid unless repeated or sanated.

 

[RyanL]

As I am currently pursuing a Sanatio In Radice, I feel I have something to contribute to this. I was a Catholic “away from my faith” when I married my Baptist wife in a Methodist church. Her friends, both Methodists, were married in the same church. Their marriage is valid, ours is not. Same church, same minister, different result. Why? Had I renounced my faith and joined the Baptist church, our marriage would be valid. Why does this change since I have never renounced my faith? The answer is that when I was confirmed I implicitly made an oath before God that I would obey the laws of His Church, including canon law. Even though we were doing the same thing as our friends, I was making a promise that I was not allowed to make. I had no dispensation for ‘lack of canonical form’ or ‘disparity of cult’, so these were obstacles to a valid marriage. I swore that I would be a Catholic and live as a Catholic, then I tried to sneak away and slide a Sacrament by God. Obviously, even though I didn’t know that I wasn’t allowed to make that promise, God knew. We have since had a child. Is the child illegitimate? Nope. Legitimacy is an issue of “civil law”, and has nothing to do with the Church’s view. Because I was in a “civil law” marriage, my son is legitimate. As far as the Church is concerned, the child is equally worthy, regardless of the circumstances, and so she makes no determination either way (because she doesn’t care).

Needless to say, my wife didn’t understand.

She was unwilling to renew our vows, because she felt ours were “good enough”. So now I’m pursuing a Sanatio In Radice, which is explained as follows:

the “sanatio in radice.” This is too large
a matter for full discussion here. An example must suffice. If
a Catholic goes through a form of marriage with a non-Catholic
in a registry office, the normal way of validating the
marriage would be to go through the correct form before a
priest. But, if this would be impossible or seriously
inconvenient, the Holy See can grant a “sanatio in radice”
without requiring any official act of any kind, even without
the knowledge of the non-Catholic party, provided that there
is reasonable assurance that the faith of the Catholic spouse
or of the children is in no danger. The effect is to make the
marriage valid “in its root”: it is as if it had been valid
from the beginning. The children born of it are legitimate.

The Sanatio is more or less a “retro-active dispensation” which serves to sanctify (validate) the marriage without a ceremony of any kind. What was required was my contacting the Vicar General of the diocese and signing a sworn statement about my situation, and my wife and I both have to get 2 afidavits from people who have known us > 5yrs to testify that we have never been married before and that we are both validly baptized. I expect to be finished by next week (a quick prayer would be helpful, if you don’t mind).

If you have further questions, I’ve had to do quite a bit of reading about this and would be willing to try and answer any questions you have. Of course, you could also talk to your priest / Vicar General about it.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[mercygate]

RyanL:

As I am currently pursuing a Sanatio In Radice, I feel I have something to contribute to this. I was a Catholic “away from my faith” when I married my Baptist wife in a Methodist church. Her friends, both Methodists, were married in the same church. Their marriage is valid, ours is not. Same church, same minister, different result. Why? Had I renounced my faith and joined the Baptist church, our marriage would be valid. Why does this change since I have never renounced my faith? The answer is that when I was confirmed I implicitly made an oath before God that I would obey the laws of His Church, including canon law. Even though we were doing the same thing as our friends, I was making a promise that I was not allowed to make. I had no dispensation for ‘lack of canonical form’ or ‘disparity of cult’, so these were obstacles to a valid marriage. I swore that I would be a Catholic and live as a Catholic, then I tried to sneak away and slide a Sacrament by God. Obviously, even though I didn’t know that I wasn’t allowed to make that promise, God knew. We have since had a child. Is the child illegitimate? Nope. Legitimacy is an issue of “civil law”, and has nothing to do with the Church’s view. Because I was in a “civil law” marriage, my son is legitimate. As far as the Church is concerned, the child is equally worthy, regardless of the circumstances, and so she makes no determination either way (because she doesn’t care).

Needless to say, my wife didn’t understand.

She was unwilling to renew our vows, because she felt ours were “good enough”. So now I’m pursuing a Sanatio In Radice, which is explained as follows:

The Sanatio is more or less a “retro-active dispensation” which serves to sanctify (validate) the marriage without a ceremony of any kind. What was required was my contacting the Vicar General of the diocese and signing a sworn statement about my situation, and my wife and I both have to get 2 afidavits from people who have known us > 5yrs to testify that we have never been married before and that we are both validly baptized. I expect to be finished by next week (a quick prayer would be helpful, if you don’t mind).

If you have further questions, I’ve had to do quite a bit of reading about this and would be willing to try and answer any questions you have. Of course, you could also talk to your priest / Vicar General about it.

God Bless,
RyanL

Hm. My husband was told just the opposite. He had left the Church, was received officially in the Episcopal Church, married me 5 years later, and WE had to marry from scratch because he had officially joined the Episcopal Church . . . Go figure.

 

[RyanL]

From Fr. Serpa on the “Ask an Apologist” forum:

…We rejoice at the good news of your return to the Catholic Church! It does sound like you formally embraced membership in another church. If this is the case, then you formally left the Catholic Church. Therefore the Catholic Church would accept your marriage as valid. It would be the marriage of two Protestants. If this is the case, then you do not have to have your marriage convalidated. But you need to see your pastor about this. It would be best to not receive Holy Communion until you are sure of this matter…

Don’t know why you got the bum-scoop. I hope you didn’t have too hard a time with it…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[paramedicgirl]

gracelife:

I started this topic in the sacraments section, but since this is a busy spot, I thought I’d post here too. Hope that is okay. I really need help with this.

It just makes no sense.

• 2 married non-Christians are not fornicating, married by the State .

The Church recognizes marriage betwen 2 unbaptized persons, (a man & a woman, LOL) though not a sacrament, as valid if it is contracted validly. Thus it would be indissoluble.

gracelife:

• 2 married Protestants are not fornicating married in a Christian Church .

Every true marriage between a baptized man and a baptized woman is recognized by the Church as sacramental, because Jesus raised Christian marriage to the dignity of a sacrament at the wedding feast of Cana.

gracelife:

• 1 Catholic and 1 Protestant are fornicating if not married with/by a Priest, but in a Christian church.

This is because Catholics who marry outside the Church are not validly married in the eyes of the Church, or before God. People who do this cannot receive the sacraments until they validate their marriage. The laws of the Church require a Catholic to be married by a priest (or bishop). Otherwise we sin against the sixth and ninth commandments.

 

[Philthy]

gracelife:

I started this topic in the sacraments section, but since this is a busy spot, I thought I’d post here too. Hope that is okay. I really need help with this.

It just makes no sense.

• 2 married non-Christians are not fornicating, married by the State
• 2 married Protestants are not fornicating married in a Christian Church
• 1 Catholic and 1 Protestant are fornicating if not married with/by a Priest, but in a Christian church.

It is part of this issue that is keeping me from reverting and my husband offended that his Church wasn’t “good enough”. It makes me very sad.

Of the 6 people listed, only one of them has knowledge that they are in sin: the Catholic. Knowledge and culpability are inseparable.

Phil

 

[mercygate]

RyanL:

From Fr. Serpa on the “Ask an Apologist” forum:

Don’t know why you got the bum-scoop. I hope you didn’t have too hard a time with it…

God Bless,
RyanL

I didn’t have a problem with it but my reverted Catholic husband did! Frankly, I find Fr. Serpa’s (and, I presume the canonical) reasoning less persuasive than my Priest’s position “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” view, which made my husband’s marriage outside the Church invalid.

Authoritative discrepancies such as this make consulting knowledgeable clergy important in these matters. Priests in two Archdioceses looked at our case, and nobody came up with the Serpa position.

 

[mlchance]

spanky:

Perhaps because, depending on the demonination, most Protestants don’t even consider marriage a Sacrament.

In this former Protestant’s church, we didn’t have any Sacraments at all. That didn’t stop the Church from recognizing that my Baptism under that denomination was valid.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Lillith]

Do you mind if I throw a monkey wrench in?

I understand by reading this thread that protestant marriages are not considered sacramental, probably because of they agree with divorce.

Why then did my Baptist husband need to get an anullment before we could be married in the Chruch?

 

[mercygate]

Lillith:

Do you mind if I throw a monkey wrench in?

I understand by reading this thread that protestant marriages are not considered sacramental, probably because of they agree with divorce.

Why then did my Baptist husband need to get an anullment before we could be married in the Chruch?

A marriage may be valid without being sacramental. Your husband’s marriage wasn’t a sacrament because Baptists do not believe that marriage is a Sacrament. They don’t believe in sacraments of any kind. They call even baptism and the Lord’s Supper “ordinances.”

 

[paramedicgirl]

Lillith:

Do you mind if I throw a monkey wrench in?

I understand by reading this thread that protestant marriages are not considered sacramental, probably because of they agree with divorce.

Why then did my Baptist husband need to get an anullment before we could be married in the Chruch?

Actually, the Catholic Church does consider marriage between baptized non-Catholics as a sacrament, if the marriage was contracted in a valid way. It can be broken only by the death of one of the parties.

So, even though protestant denominations do not recognize the sacrament of marriage, it is still a sacrament before God, hence the position of the Catholic Church.